The Physics of Everything: Understanding Superstring Theory
Written By Donavan Mason September 10, 2015
A theory with 26 dimensions, objects with imaginary mass that could ruin the very physics of our universe, and the notion that particles and forces are only excitations of vibrational modes—string theory, and all that it entails, is mind-boggling. However, how can it possibly work? After all, we only experience four dimensions (three of space and one of time), so 26 dimensions is 22 too many.
That’s where “superstring theory” comes in.
The Foundation of String Theory:
String theory states that all matter in the universe is composed of tiny 1-dimensional strings, not point particles (which are 0-dimensional in nature). According to string theory, “strings” are tiny bits of pure energy that are the smallest constituents of matter and force interaction in our universe. General quantum strings are approximated to be 10-33
cm in length (that’s pretty amazingly small).
In the eyes of a string theorist, all universal constituents (fermions, quarks and leptons, hadrons, bosons, and force carriers [such as photons]) are defined by the vibrational mode (and usually orientation) of its string.
Standard Model “Particle Fever: Particles of the Standard Model of Physics”. In string theory, all elementary particles are suggested to be manifestations of an energetic “string” vibrating near each of their centers. (Image Credit: Duncan Hull, Flickr)
Traditional string theories include two kinds of strings, open and closed. Those that are open generally have endpoints, which vary in length. Closed strings, on the other hand, have no endpoints and are generally circular in nature (unless, of course, they are in a vibrational state). Ironically enough, some string theories contain open strings, but all string theories require closed strings. Different levels of magnification of matter, ending with the string level. Image credit via MissMJ, Wikimedia Commons Different levels of magnification of matter (1-5), ending with the string level (6). Image credit via MissMJ, Wikimedia Commons.
Steven S. Gubser, a physics professor at Princeton University, and author of The Little Book of String Theory, sums up the theory rather nicely, asserting that, “String theory aims to be a unifying picture, where each [particle] is a different vibrational mode of a string”.
Different levels of magnification of matter (1-5), ending with the string level (6). Image credit via MissMJ, Wikimedia Commons.
A string’s “vibrational mode” is only a fancy way of identifying the manner in which it oscillates. Here is a theoretical example: if a string vibrates (or wiggles) in one manner (a), it could exhibit characteristics of an “up” quark. If a second string is introduced with the same properties, we now have two (a-vibrational) strings, or basically two “up” quarks. However, when a third string that vibrates in a rather different manner (b), acts as a “down” quark, the resulting interaction simplifies as (a+a+b)* or two up quarks and one down quark. The result of two up quarks and one down quark produces a proton.
*(While the plus sign “+” is a literal mathematical interaction, it can be seen as the interactions between the new “quarks,” and effectively acts as a string/particle itself! String theorists call these gluons (g), which are responsible for the strong nuclear force and cannot exist independently (free) from such quantum systems).
Looking at it backwards: a proton is a composite particle (or hadron) built from two up quarks and one down quark, each quark being a manifestation of the string it represents.
In string theory, quarks themselves contain fragments of energy that exist on a one-dimensional plane—length. If an object only has length, it must be infinitely thin (with no depth), it must therefore be envisioned as a line segment. Scientists chose “strings” over “line segments” because strings are flexible, and can be contorted in almost infinite ways, thus producing a nearly infinite spectrum of vibrational modes or “tones.” Branes & Superstring Theory:
String theory, while prestigious in many facets—especially in quantum mechanics and cosmology—does indeed carry flaws that can turn the universe inside out. It offers a sound hypothesis of interactions on the quantum plane, from what quarks are made of to the long sought-after graviton (which mediates gravitational interaction, a massless particle with an integer spin of +/-2).
However, problems arise when the complex mathematics of string theory indicate a need for twenty-six spatial dimensions to function. While twenty-six dimensions are far too many, they can be twisted or even folded into tiny tight compact regions in spacetime, thus possibly reducing the dimensions to four. However, a twenty-six dimensional spacetime in string theory has major flaws; two of which are:
1) “Bosonic” string theory (the original string theory) does not permit fermions (protons, neutrons, etc.), only force carriers (bosons, hence the name “bosonic”), which contradicts the universe’s observable function.
2) Twenty-six dimensional spacetime MUST include the “tachyon.” (While Star Trek fans might jump for joy, tachyons are anything but beloved to string theory. They have properties of negative mass (which basically means imaginary mass, and are prone to an instability that scientists have dubbed “tachyonic” in nature). And constituents of the universe with negative or imaginary mass make certain aspects and measurements of the universe imaginary themselves.
That’s where superstring theory comes in.
Cutting down the dimensions from twenty-six to ten, superstring theory has eliminated the tachyon problem, and it still offers the graviton. (As a notable aside, although there are five kinds of superstring theory, during the second superstring revolution they’ve come to be known as alternative means of describing the same theory or “M-theory.”)
The “super” in superstring theory simply means “supersymmetric,” implying that particles in the Standard Model have supersymmetrical partners, or “superpartners.” Examples of superpartners include the s-higgs (or shiggs) for the Higgs boson, s-electrons for electrons (selectrons), and s-quarks (you got it…. squarks) for quarks and so on.
One of the many complex aspects of superstring theory is branes. These are like strings, but they can have any number of dimensions of a spacial extent. Most of these objects are noted to be covered in unique event horizons and can vary in dimensions (and structure): from point particles, to torus and/or tubular in shape, to multi-dimensional structures that would take very complicated mathematics to envision.
The study of these structures is known as “brane cosmology.” And just like with the electron, the positron, and many more particles predicted to exist decades before actually being found, superstring theory offers a very prosperous insight on branes, strings, and models for quantum gravity.
That said, the superpartners remain undetected. And although there is a lot of promising research being done at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the superpartners of observed standard model particles are expected to be far more massive, thus requiring more energy than the LHC can provide; meaning superpartners, if they do exist, are currently beyond our technological grasp.
In the end, superstring theory will have serious trouble thriving without these supersymmetric particles (and yes, they’re called sparticles).
theory. They have properties of negative mass (which basically means imaginary mass, and are prone to an instability that scientists have dubbed “tachyonic” in nature). And constituents of the universe with negative or imaginary mass make certain aspects and measurements of the universe imaginary themselves.
The problem with string theory, according to some physicists, is that it makes too many universes. It predicts not one but some 10500 versions of spacetime, each with their own laws of physics. But with so many universes on the table, how can the theory explain why ours has the features it does?
Now some theorists suggest most—if not all—of those universes are actually forbidden, at least if we want them to have stable dark energy, the supposed force accelerating the expansion of the cosmos. To some, eliminating so many possible universes is not a drawback but a major step forward for string theory, offering new hope of making testable predictions. But others say the multiverse is here to stay, and the proposed problem with all those universes is not a problem at all.
The debate was a hot topic at the end of June in Japan, where string theorists convened for the conference Strings 2018. “This is really something new and it’s led to a controversy within the field,” says Ulf Danielsson, a physicist at Uppsala University in Sweden. The conversation centers on a pair of papers posted on the preprint server arXiv last month taking aim at the so-called “landscape” of string theory—the incomprehensible number of potential universes that result from the many different solutions to string theory’s equations that produce the ingredients of our own cosmos, including dark energy. But the vast majority of the solutions found so far are mathematically inconsistent, the papers contend, putting them not in the landscape but in the so-called “swampland” of universes that cannot actually exist. Scientists have known many solutions must fall in this swampland for years, but the idea that most, or maybe all, of the landscape solutions might live there would be a major change. In fact, it may be theoretically impossible to find a valid solution to string theory that includes stable dark energy, says Cumrun Vafa, a Harvard University physicist who led the work on the two papers. Lost in the Multiverse
String theory is an attempt to describe the whole universe under a single “theory of everything” by adding extra dimensions of spacetime and thinking of particles as miniscule vibrating loops. Many string theorists contend it is still the most promising direction for pursuing Albert Einstein’s dream of uniting his general theory of relativity with the conflicting microscopic world of quantum mechanics. Yet the notion of a string theory landscape that predicts not just one universe but many has put some physicists off. “If it’s really the landscape, in my view it’s death for the theory because it loses all predictive value,” says Princeton University physicist Paul Steinhardt, who collaborated on one of the recent papers. “Literally anything is possible.” To Steinhardt and others, the newfound problems with dark energy offer string theory a way out. “This picture with a big multiverse could be mathematically wrong,” Danielsson says. “Paradoxically this makes things much more interesting because that means string theory is much more predictive than we thought it was.”
Some string theorists such as Savdeep Sethi of the University of Chicago welcome the reevaluation that is happening now. “I think this is exciting,” he says. “I’ve been a skeptic of the landscape for a long time. I’m really happy to see the paradigm shift away from this belief that we have this proven set of solutions.” But not everyone buys the argument that the landscape actually belongs in the swampland—especially the research team that established one of the earliest versions of the landscape in the first place back in 2003, which goes by the acronym KKLT after the scientists’ last names. “I think it’s very healthy to make these conjectures and check what other things could be going on but I don’t see either theoretical or experimental reasons to take such a conjecture very seriously,” says KKLT member Shamit Kachru of Stanford University. And Eva Silverstein, a Stanford physicist who also helped build the early landscape models, likewise doubts Vafa and his colleagues’ argument. “I think the ingredients KKLT use and the way they put them together is perfectly valid,” she says. Juan Maldacena, a theorist at the Institute for Advanced Study, says he also still supports the idea of string theory universes with stable dark energy.
And many theorists are perfectly happy with the string theory multiverse. “It is true that if this landscape picture is correct, the bit of the universe we’re in compared to the multiverse will be like our solar system within the universe,” Kachru says. And that is a good thing, he adds. Johannes Kepler originally sought a fundamental reason for why Earth lies the distance it does from the sun. But now we know the sun is just one of billions of stars in the galaxy, each with its own planets, and the Earth–sun distance is simply a random number rather than a result of some deep mathematical principle. Likewise, if the universe is one of trillions within the multiverse, the particular parameters of our cosmos are similarly random. The fact these numbers seem perfectly fine-tuned to create a habitable universe is a selection effect—humans will of course find themselves in one of the rare corners of the multiverse where it is possible for them to have evolved. The Accelerating Universe
If it is true string theory cannot accommodate stable dark energy, that may be a reason to doubt string theory. But to Vafa it is a reason to doubt dark energy—that is, dark energy in its most popular form, called a cosmological constant. The idea originated in 1917 with Einstein and was revived in 1998 when astronomers discovered that not only is spacetime expanding—the rate of that expansion is picking up. The cosmological constant would be a form of energy in the vacuum of space that never changes and counteracts the inward pull of gravity. But it is not the only possible explanation for the accelerating universe. An alternative is “quintessence,” a field pervading spacetime that can evolve. “Regardless of whether one can realize a stable dark energy in string theory or not, it turns out that the idea of having dark energy changing over time is actually more natural in string theory,” Vafa says. “If this is the case, then one can measure this sliding of dark energy by astrophysical observations currently taking place.”
So far all astrophysical evidence supports the cosmological constant idea, but there is some wiggle room in the measurements. Upcoming experiments such as Europe’s Euclid space telescope, NASA’s Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) and the Simons Observatory being built in Chile’s desert will look for signs dark energy was stronger or weaker in the past than the present. “The interesting thing is that we’re already at a sensitivity level to begin to put pressure on [the cosmological constant theory].” Steinhardt says. “We don’t have to wait for new technology to be in the game. We’re in the game now.” And even skeptics of Vafa’s proposal support the idea of considering alternatives to the cosmological constant. “I actually agree that a changing dark energy field] is a simplifying method for constructing accelerated expansion,” Silverstein says. “But I don’t think there’s any justification for making observational predictions about the dark energy at this point.”
Quintessence is not the only other option. In the wake of Vafa’s papers, Danielsson and colleagues proposed another way of fitting dark energy into string theory. In their vision our universe is the three-dimensional surface of a bubble expanding within a larger-dimensional space. “The physics within this surface can mimic the physics of a cosmological constant,” Danielsson says. “This is a different way of realizing dark energy compared to what we’ve been thinking so far.” A Beautiful Theory
Ultimately the debate going on in string theory centers on a deep question: What is the point of physics? Should a good theory be able to explain the particular characteristics of the universe around us or is that asking too much? And when a theory conflicts with the way we think our universe works, do we abandon the theory or the things we think we know?
String theory is incredibly appealing to many scientists because it is “beautiful”—its equations are satisfying and its proposed explanations elegant. But so far it lacks any experimental evidence supporting it—and even worse, any reasonable prospects for gathering such evidence. Yet even the suggestion string theory may not be able to accommodate the kind of dark energy we see in the cosmos around us does not dissuade some. “String theory is so rich and beautiful and so correct in almost all the things that it’s taught us that it’s hard to believe that the mistake is in string theory and not in us,” Sethi says. But perhaps chasing after beauty is not a good way to find the right theory of the universe. “Mathematics is full of amazing and beautiful things, and most of them do not describe the world,” physicist Sabine Hossenfelder of the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies wrote in her recent book, Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray (Basic Books, 2018).
Despite the divergence of opinions, physicists are a friendly bunch, and are united by their common goal of understanding the universe. Kachru, one of the founders of the landscape idea, worked with Vafa, the landscape’s critic, as his undergraduate advisor—and the two are still friends. “He asked me once if I’d bet my life these [landscape solutions] exist,” Kachru says. “My answer was, ‘I wouldn’t bet my life but I’d bet his!’”
The Huge, Terrifying Idea That Explodes the Big Bang –“String Theory Landscape”
Posted on Sep 17, 2018
“It probably bothered the first human beings who realized that the world was not just their local valley,” said Leonard Susskind, the Felix Bloch Professor in Physics at Stanford University. “It probably terrified them a little bit, but by now we’re used to the world getting bigger and bigger. The String Theory Landscape just says it’s way bigger than we thought.”
The String Theory Landscape combines elements of string theory and cosmic inflation to greatly expand the scope of the Big Bang theory to incorporate the idea of infinite universes in a vast multiverse. The theory’s advocates say it’s the only way to explain why certain features of the universe are suspiciously fine-tuned for life, while critics say it’s not scientific because it can’t be experimentally verified.
The Big Bang theory describes the abrupt origins of space and time from a swiftly unfurling singularity – a hot, dense point of pure potential, packed impossibly full with eternity and the rudiments of creation. As with the universe it seeks to explain, the theory is endlessly evolving. Ever since its proposal nearly a century ago, physicists have revised and remade it to reflect new scientific concepts and discoveries.
The latest draft of the scientific story of genesis is called the String Theory Landscape. Entwined at its heart are two of the strangest and most enduring ideas in modern physics – string theory and cosmic inflation – which Stanford physicists helped bring together nearly two decades ago.
String theory asserts that the basic building blocks of reality are vibrating, one-dimensional loops of energy that quiver in 10 or more dimensions to strum out the elementary particles and fundamental forces of nature.
Cosmic inflation holds that the Big Bang began with a period of exponential expansion that swelled our universe from a fragile quantum speck to a vast manor of emptiness a quarter-billion-light-years wide in a flicker of a flicker of time. According to the theory, this heavenly sprawl still occurs in distant corners of the cosmos, spinning out a web of related daughter universes that connect to form a much larger “multiverse.”
For decades, the two theories circled one another, each advancing along a seemingly unique track and independently gaining momentum among physicists, until an unexpected discovery drove them together. The String Theory Landscape was born in the wake of their collision – and physics has never been quite the same since.
It was an “earthquake that caused enormous consternation and controversy among theoretical physicists,” wrote Susskind, in his 2005 book The Cosmic Landscape.
The String Theory Landscape rekindled the ashes of an old debate in physics, one that smolders to this day. On one side are those who contend, as Albert Einstein once did, that the laws of nature are elegant, immutable and inevitable, and that they can be discovered and described through mathematics. In contrast, most Landscape proponents believe that while the underlying equations of string theory may be simple and elegant, the solutions to those equations are tremendously complex and infinitely diverse.
This diversity, they say, is key to explaining certain baffling features of our universe, like the fact that several parameters in physics and cosmology appear to be curiously fine-tuned for life forms like us to exist. Perhaps the most glaring example is the cosmological constant, which relates to a universal repulsive force that is pushing space-time apart. Physicists have struggled to explain why the tiny value of this constant just happens to lie within the narrow band that allows stars and planets to form and biological life to evolve. But if there are innumerable universes, each with differing laws of physics, then it should not be surprising that we inhabit one where the cosmological constant is small – if things were any different, we could not exist to marvel at the coincidence.
“The String Theory Landscape potentially explains many properties of our world,” said physicist Andrei Linde, the Harald Trap Friis Professor at Stanford. “It may explain not just the cosmological constant, but also why the mass of the proton and neutron are almost exactly the same, why the electron mass is so small, and why we live in a universe with three dimensions of space and not 10. There is no other theory that can do that.”
The String Theory Landscape also rouses fierce emotions because it touches upon questions that cut to the heart of modern physics and science in general. If gravity’s strength can vary from one universe to the next, what is the point of trying to understand its extraordinary weakness in our universe? And if a theory can’t make testable predictions, is it still science? “One dominant view in the community is that believing in the Landscape might have the negative effect of leading people away from fundamental physics, so we shouldn’t even discuss it,” said Shamit Kachru, who holds the Wells Family Directorship of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics (SITP).
Landscape supporters say the theory is just the latest helping of humble pie that humanity has had to swallow as its sense of privilege in the universe has been slowly effaced by centuries of scientific progress.
The Daily Galaxy via Ker Than and Stanford University
String theory represents a major dream of theoretical physicists — a description of all forces and matter in one mathematical picture. But after countless papers, conferences and dry-erase markers, the breathtaking breakthrough many once hoped for seems further away than ever.
Nevertheless, even without signs of flashy progress, the resulting insight has left a deep imprint on both physics and math. Like it or not (and some physicists certainly don't) string theory is here to stay. String theory simplified
As a so-called "Theory of Everything" candidate, string theory aims to address various theoretical conundrums; the most fundamental of which is how gravity works for tiny objects like electrons and photons. General relativity describes gravity as a reaction of large objects, like planets, to curved regions of space, but theoretical physicists think gravity should ultimately behave more like magnetism — fridge magnets stick because their particles are swapping photons with fridge particles. Of the four forces in nature, only gravity lacks this description from the perspective of small particles. Theorists can predict what a gravity particle should look like, but when they try to calculate what happens when two "gravitons" smash together, they get an infinite amount of energy packed into a small space — a sure sign that the math is missing something.
One possible solution, which theorists borrowed from nuclear physicists in the 1970s, is to get rid of the problematic, point-like graviton particles. Strings, and only strings, can collide and rebound cleanly without implying physically impossible infinities.
"A one-dimensional object — that's the thing that really tames the infinities that come up in the calculations," said Marika Taylor, a theoretical physicist at the University of Southampton in England.
String theory turns the page on the standard description of the universe by replacing all matter and force particles with just one element: Tiny vibrating strings that twist and turn in complicated ways that, from our perspective, look like particles. A string of a particular length striking a particular note gains the properties of a photon, and another string folded and vibrating with a different frequency plays the role of a quark, and so on. In addition to taming gravity, the framework proved attractive for its potential to explain so-called fundamental constants like the electron's mass. The next step is to find the right way to describe the folding and movement of strings, theorists hope, and everything else will follow.
But that initial simplicity turned out to come at the cost of unexpected complexity — string math didn't work in the familiar four dimensions (three of space and one of time). It needed six additional dimensions (for a total of 10) visible only to the little strings, much as a powerline looks like a 1D line to birds flying far overhead but a 3D cylinder to an ant crawling on the wire. Adding to the conundrum, physicists had come up with five conflicting string theories by the mid-1980s. The theory of everything was fractured.
A more fundamental theory emerges
Over the next decade, scientists exploring the relationships between the five theories began to find unexpected connections, which Edward Witten, a theorist at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, gathered up and presented at a 1995 string theory conference at the University of Southern California. Witten argued that the five string theories each represented an approximation of a more fundamental, 11-dimensional theory in a particular situation, much as how Einstein’s space- and time-bending theories of relativity match Newton’s description of objects moving at normal speeds.
The novel theory is called M-theory, although to this day no one knows what mathematical form it might take. The "M" is likely inspired by higher-dimensional objects called membranes, Taylor said, but since the theory has no concrete mathematical equations, the "M" remains a placeholder with no official meaning. "It was really a parametrization of our igannance," Taylor said. "This parent theory that would describe absolutely everything."
Attempts to find those general equations that would work in every possible situation made little progress, but the alleged existence of the fundamental theory gave theorists the understanding and confidence needed to develop mathematical techniques for the five versions of string theory and apply them in the right context. Strings are far too small to detect with any conceivable technology, but one early theoretical success was their ability to describe black hole entropy in 1996.
Entropy refers to the number of ways that you can arrange the parts of a system, but without being able to see into the impenetrable depths of a black hole, no one knows what type of particles might lie inside, or what arrangements they can take. And yet, in the early 1970s Stephen Hawking and others showed how to calculate the entropy, suggesting that black holes have some sort of internal structure. Most attempts to describe the black hole’s makeup fall short, but tallying the configurations of hypothetical strings does the trick. "String theory has been able to give a spot-on counting," Taylor says, "not just roughly getting it right."
The string framework still faces many challenges, however: It produces an impossible number of ways to fold up the extra dimensions that all seem to fit the broad features of the Standard Model of particle physics, with little hope of distinguishing which is the right one. Moreover, all of those models rely on an equivalence between force particles and matter particles called supersymmetry that, like the extra dimensions, we don't observe in our world. The models also don't seem to describe an expanding universe.
A number of physicists, such as Peter Woit of Columbia University, view these divergences from reality as fatal flaws. "The basic problem with string theory unification research is not that progress has been slow over the past 30 years," he wrote on his blog, "but that it has been negative, with everything learned showing more clearly why the idea doesn't work."
Taylor, however, maintains that today’s models are overly simplistic, and that features like cosmological expansion and a lack of supersymmetry may someday be built into future versions. Taylor expects that, while the new era of gravitational wave astronomy may bring new tidbits of information about quantum gravity, more progress will be made by continuing to follow the math deeper into string theory. "I have a theoretical bias," she said, "but I think the kind of breakthrough I'm describing would come from a chalkboard; from thought."
Tangled yarn to represent the complexity of string theory.
String theory math required six additional dimensions (for a total of 10) visible only to the little strings, much as a powerline looks like a 1D line to birds flying far overhead but a 3D cylinder to an ant crawling on the wire. (Image credit: Shutterstock) Modern string theory connects mathematical dots
Regardless of how string theory's Theory of Everything candidacy evolves, its legacy as a productive research program may be assured on mathematical merit alone.
"It can't be a dead end in the sense of what we've learned just from mathematics itself," Taylor said. "If you told me tomorrow that the universe absolutely isn't supersymmetric and doesn't have 10 [spatial] dimensions, we've still connected whole branches of mathematics."
When Witten and others showed that the five string theories were shadows of a single parent theory, they highlighted connections called dualities, which have proven to be a major contribution to mathematics and physics.
Whether you're expecting your very first baby or shopping for a lively toddler, Chicco helps you find the right seat! See More
A duality is an abstract, mathematical relationship between two situations that look different, but can be translated from one to the other. Consider, for example, an eagle hologram on a credit card. Is it 2D or 3D? In a physical sense the sticker is flat, but in a visual sense the image has depth. Both descriptions agree that the hologram contains an eagle.
Physicists have used analogous dualities to bridge seemingly unrelated branches of math, such as geometry and number theory. Each operates as a separate language, but dualities let mathematicians translate from one to the other, attacking problems untenable in one framework by using calculations done in the other. Other dualities help overcome challenges in quantum computing. "It's not going to make your next generation iPhone," Taylor said, "But it may make your iPhone for the 22nd century."
Whether string theory's ability to illuminate the dark web connecting different areas of math turns out to be a sign of its potential, or just a lucky coincidence, remains a subject of debate. Witten, speaking at Princeton in May, acknowledged that while he no longer feels as confident as he once did that did that string theory will evolve into a complete physical theory, his gut tells him that the theory remains productive field of research.
"To me, it's implausible that humans stumbled by accident on[to] such an incredible structure that sheds so much light on established physical theories, and also on so many different branches of mathematics," he told the audience. "I have confidence that the general enterprise is on the right track, but I don't claim that the argument I've given is scientifically convincing."
lois: Very Happy to see you Ron. Missed you. Glad you are doing better now. Sorry for your lost. I did not know your brother had passed. hugs lois
Jul 10, 2018 0:52:45 GMT -6
paulette: Ron - hope you've hit a quiet spot. Sorry for your loss.
Aug 3, 2018 10:49:30 GMT -6
lois: I picked up my phone a few days ago and I looked at the name of the caller. Boy was I surprise. It has been a couple of years. So good to hear your voice Ron. Hope you make it a habit again. love and hugs .
Aug 15, 2018 23:21:38 GMT -6
leia77: Spotless, I am glad that you are feeling better and welcome back! I too am back from a long time away...
Aug 31, 2018 2:08:32 GMT -6
jcurio: I am much relieved to see that you have been on here, Spotless! I hope that things are going much better for you now
Sept 19, 2018 16:46:42 GMT -6
jcurio: And Lois, And Lorelei!
Sept 19, 2018 16:47:07 GMT -6
casper: And Meeeeeee!!
Oct 16, 2018 18:41:31 GMT -6
lois: Sorry guys I cannot see the print. On is tiny hand computer
Oct 21, 2018 20:42:09 GMT -6
lois: Casper your page stops at page five in 2016
Nov 15, 2018 23:54:01 GMT -6
lois: How did your Halloween night go this year?
Nov 15, 2018 23:54:58 GMT -6
skywalker: He posted on the Halloween thread this year.
Nov 25, 2018 18:33:36 GMT -6
lois: Oh ok Sky I will check it out. Thanks.
Dec 21, 2018 21:45:31 GMT -6
lois: What topic was it under.
Dec 21, 2018 21:51:07 GMT -6