Research is going on that universe and Four-dimensional

RESEARCH IS GOING ON WHETHER THE UNIVERSE IS FOUR-DIMENSIONAL OR FIVE-DIMENSIONAL.

?Many scientists still perceive uncomfortable with the Copenhagen quantum theory understanding and endeavor to forward alternatives. But none of them solve the problems satisfactorily. The reason may be their insistence to keep the superposition idea. Indeed, the use of superposition and the Schrodinger equation provides accurate probability predictions. Quantum theory does not describe physical reality. It provides an algorithm for computing possibilities for the macroscopic events that are the consequences of our experimental interventions. This strict definition of quantum theory is the only interpretation ever needed, whether by experimenters or theorists. Some of them presented new alternatives to the quantum interpretation by suggesting that the universe is a five-dimensional world. But these theories suggest only partial solutions. Therefore, it is suggested a possible way to shed light on how our universe functions is by assuming that we are in a five-dimension universe (or more) and not a four-dimensional world we perceive. A five-dimensional universe enables us another degree of freedom to explain the strange phenomena presented by the current physical theories. The suggestion we live in a five-dimensional universe is more candid than RandellSundrum’s four-dimensional “brane,” residing in a five-dimensional universe. However, it forces us to reexamine all current scientific theories tailored to our four-dimensional universe’s perception.

It shows some ideas regarding the existence of a five-dimensional universe and the advantages of investigating the possibility of a unified theory assuming a five-dimensional universe. The clue of the universe being a five-dimensional space is not new. It was introduced by Kaluza. in his 1921 paper. Kaluza established all the mathematical elements: the field equations, the equations of motion, the stress-energy tensor, etc.’ His theory extends general relativity to five dimensions and unifies the electromagnetic and relativistic theories. Philosophers and scientists rejected Kaluza’s idea, arguing that it did not comply with human perception of the four-dimensional universe. But although it is convenient to think that things we cannot imagine or perceive do not exist, many experiments contradict this idea. Theories should be verified only by objective measurements and not by our limited senses. Now the existence of a five-dimensional universe is supported by many physicists. Some of them suggest ways to prove the existence of a five-dimensional universe.

These observations are based on the following facts:

In the general theory of relativity, Einstein explained gravitational power by distortion of the four-dimensional space due to mass. The four-dimensional space obviously, distorts in the fifth dimension direction. Measuring the light’s angle from a distant star was deflected, passing near the sun’s mass, showing this star to be located elsewhere, thus proving Einstein’s theory. We cannot see or imagine the fifth dimension because of our limited perception, but we can see the consequences of the fifth-dimensional deflection. ?Dr. Arlie O. Petters found another reason in his research on five-dimensional black holes created in the big bang. ?Physicists like Randell and Sundrum accept that particles’ actual size is much bigger than was measured up to now. The measurements in a weak gravity field of the four dimensions present smaller values. They propose to prove a five-dimensional space by colliding particles with high energy. The gravitational force will be the other fundamental forces’ size and prove the fifth dimension’s existence in such proximity.

Distributed under a CC BY 4.0 Fifth-dimension theory potential Assuming the extra spatial dimension provides an additional degree of freedom, it can solve many unexplained problems and perhaps a unified theory. These are some problems physicists should try to solve with the aid of the assumption of the existence of a five-dimensional universe: Incompatibility of the gravitational force - the hierarchy problem, ?Elimination of the uncertainty principle using the extra degree of freedom, ?Eliminating superposition idea, and therefore also the measurement problem, ?Entanglement - separating two entangled electrons in the three spatial dimensions does not necessarily separate them in the fourth spatial dimension. Changing the spin direction of one electron will instantly change the entangled electron’s spin direction because they are still adjutants. We can explain this idea by the analogy of two people standing far apart on a flat surface. Both will measure the same atmospheric pressure because they are still at the same height regarding the third dimension, no matter how far we separate them on the plain. Axel Dietrich and Willem Been explained this in their paper that ?can explain gravitational waves as movements in the fifth dimension caused by a sudden change in mass - for example, clashes of two giant stars. ?Tunneling - if there is another spatial dimension, some electrons can move in the fifth dimension where there is no obstacle and can reappear on the other end. More electrons will jump in the fifth dimension direction whenever the energy is higher. ?Dark matter - another spatial dimension can help explain the mystery of dark matter.

?There are new methods worth mentioning:

The Randell-Sundrum model- 3D branes in a 4D universe where we are on one brane and in one of the other branes is the source of strong gravitation. It is very similar to the popular MWI, where instead of many duplicated worlds, there are 3D branes in a 4D universe. These branes are always there and do not emerges in a collapse like in MWI interpretation.

?Polchinski and Strassler theorem – Similar to the Randell-Sundrum model they base the theory on the interaction of particles in the strong force and explain the particle-wave duality. And other things. It is a submission for a possible way to shed light on how our universe functions by assuming that we are in a 4D universe (or more), contrary to the Randell-Sundrum model avoiding the problems in that model. This model also fits the Peres model eliminating quantum problems. To explain the quantum behavior of our universe. One of them is the many universes interpretation by Everett, other is the pilot wave interpretation by David Bohm. All of them try mainly to eliminate the measurement problem. Atoms and all other particles do not possess definite positions, energies, or any other property, until the time of measurement. Precisely, it is not just that physicists do not know what the properties are; the properties only come into being at the time of the measurement.?A new quantum paradox throws the foundations of observed reality into question”. The inability to measure “definite locations, energies, or any other property, until the time of measurement.” as phrased by Bohr, can be due to the lack of degrees of freedom. If there are 4 large spatial dimensions (or more) instead of the 3 known dimensions, the extra degrees of freedom enable the existence of definite properties that cannot be measured in a 3-dimensional world. It can solve many other enigmas as well.

However, very few accept the imaginary world described by Bohr, as cited above. In particular, the idea of superposition is that all possibilities of behavior are present at the same time and place. We cannot experience this world because it vanishes as soon as we measure it. True, the calculations use the superposition idea, but that does not mean that this superposition state is the reality, as Christopher A. Fuchs and Asher Peres claimed in their paper: quantum needs no interpretation: Quantum theory does not describe physical reality. It provides an algorithm for computing probabilities for the macroscopic events (detector clicks) that are the consequences of our experimental interventions. This strict definition of the scope of quantum theory is the only interpretation ever needed, whether by experimenters or theorists.”

If we proposition the Large Extra Dimensions (LED) interpretation where there is no superposition and Schr dinger equation represents only a way to calculate the probability of each possible event. ?Schr dinger equation depends on time while we know that time is dependent to on gravity and relative speed. Can the Schr dinger equation give the same prediction s when the event play near different gravity environments? ?We can eliminate Schr dinger’s cat and just ? check on opening the door if the test tube was broken and the poison released. The test tube would be in superposition (broken and intact) before the measurement, not the cat. But we can eliminate the test tube too and just see if the radiation level was above the predetermined level. We do not need the complicated apparatus that actuate a hammer that breaks the test tube. But then the experiment does not depend on superposition at all just plain deterministic, (even if probabilistic), event. No superposition involved. Let us present why there is an inconvenience with the idea of superposition: It is difficult to accept the assumption that nothing is definite in a superposition state (i.e., the cat is both alive and dead) until a measurement defines what the case is (is the cat alive or dead?). ?Is nothing happening in the physical world until we look at it? If that is true, creatures would never have evolved in the evolution because there was no one to look at them at the beginning. The universe itself would have waited to materialize until we can watch it. How can contradictions be the description of the same element (a cat is alive and dead at the same time.). There is not and cannot be proof of superposition existence because it flops on measurement. Sometimes wrong physics theories seem to describe ?everything except ‘minor’ deviations, until someone comes up with a new theory explaining all phenomena including these deviations, in another way. Superposition is such a ‘minor’ deviation that calls for another quantum theory. We provide a possible scenario from the past that shows how one can attribute superposition when faced with contradictory phenomenon, when, in fact it is only lack of understanding. Before the publication of Newton's theory of gravity, people believed that the earth was flat. The earth must be flat because peoples and ships will fall off it if it is curved. Nonetheless, scientists noticed the phenomenon that suggests the earth is not flat. Looking at a ship sailing towards the horizon, the scientists saw that the ship began to disappear from its bottom, and its masts disappeared last, suggesting that the ship is sliding down. This phenomenon seemed stranger as the people on the ship's deck saw a different picture. They were on a flat sea, contrary to what the people on shore saw. Watching the shore, they saw the towers on the beach disappear beyond the horizon. Applying the physicists' approach in quantum mechanics, to the above situation, a physicist could suggest that there is a superposition state, regarding earth being in a flat and curved state at the same time. Such a superposition, the physicist would say, collapses to a flat state when people observe their vicinity. It seems that the curvature of the earth depends on the location of the viewer. In the same way, the collapse of the wave function just by looking at it does not make sense either. Newton suggested a solution. The earth is curved. He introduced a new element - the gravitational force that pulls apples down and prevents ships from falling off. People had only the illusion of the earth being flat. Just as the introduction of a new factor – gravity, explains the above phenomenon without the need to introduce superposition; a new factor can explain the strange behavior of quantum theory phenomena. Such a factor can be fourth-spatial-dimension. Indeed, the physicist Kaluza (Kaluza-Klein theory) has suggested an extra dimension to the three known, as complementary to Einstein's theory of relativity. The extra-dimension approach of the entanglement explanation is here. Klein (the other physicist participating in this theory) tried to explain that we do not "see" the additional dimensions by suggesting that it is tiny, repeating the mistake of many other physicists that are unaware of the limited perceptions we have. There is a physical world outside. The idea that the additional dimension is small does not explain why the effect still is valid in experiments where long distances separated the electrons. Why not assume additional spatial dimensions even if we cannot experience them? Physicists do suggest the existence of many dimensions. Here is a video explaining the current view regarding multiple dimensions. It is difficult for people to accept what they are not experiencing. We have become accustomed to a three-dimensional world, but that does not mean that there are no additional spatial dimensions. Creatures in the early days of senses' evolutionary development could sense only light and shadows. Their world was two-dimensional. These creatures could not imagine a three-dimensional world the same way we cannot imagine a four-dimensional world, but it does not mean there is no such world. There may not be a survival advantage in examining a world of more than three-dimensions; hence, humans do not possess the ability to 'see' a fourdimensional universe. A 4 spatial dimension universe There is a better chance to prove the existance of a 4 spatial dimension universe than to prove assumptions of interpretations like the Copenhagen interpretation, or parallel-world interpretation. There are some suggestions on how to prove it, for example Lisa Randall suggests to prove it with high energy collider. Let assume that the universe is four-dimensional and not the three-dimensional world we assume to live in. In such universe we have to locate a point in space with 4 numbers (x,y,z,l) or fife numbers if we include the time but time relates only to events not to location. An event is occurring in a place and a period of time measured from an agreed starting point, like the berth of the Christ. It is meaningless to relate time to location. Therefore here after we refer only to spatial dimensions therefore it is called 4D an not 5D. The question one immediately ask is why we do not see the world in four spatial dimension? One answer can be that we have not developed this ability in the course of evolution. To explain why a 4D universe can be real, let us consider a fish with two-dimensional vision. It is not that a fish in a pond with two-dimensional vision cannot move in the third dimension. It can, but it probably will think it is visiting a new place in its two-dimensional world. In the same way, may be we can move in all four directions, but we think when moving to a new position (x1,y1,z1,l1), that we are visiting a new 3D place (x2,y2,z2) because of our limited threedimensional vision. A smart fish can deduce the third dimension's existence by measuring the different temperatures at different heights or finding other third dimension phenomena. In the same way, we can deduce the fourth dimension's by measuring phenomena that can be explained only by a four-dimensional universe, like the entanglement phenomenon.

The following are Here are some problems in physics that a four-dimensional universe can solve: ?Entanglement (the spooky act at a distance) – we can explain the entanglement phenomenon by assuming that the two electrons (or photons) are still adjacent in the fourth dimension even if we separate them in the other three dimensions. Therefore they can exchange information immediately, regardless of their 3D separation. ?The hierarchy problem – the much smaller force of gravity than all three primary forces, can be explained by assuming that the gravitational force resides in the fourth-dimension

The unifying of Maxwell's electromagnetic equations and Einstein's relativistic equations, (the Kaluza–Klein theory). ?The four-dimensional universe assumption can explain many physics riddles and is a simple theory therefore is preferred by the rule of Occam razor. But it is difficult to vision a way to move in the fourth dimension. It is easier in the theory in which the universe is visions as a four-dimensional world where we are on a 3D brane residing in a 4D bulk. The ?possibility of teleportation: If we can move toward the 4th dimension and then move along the 3D to another place, and then go back – we will manage teleportation to the new 3D location. A fish with 2D vision cannot comprehend a 3D universe, it will probably think it is moving toward a new 2D location even if it is moving in the 3rd dimension direction. How will this fish see another fish if we take it out of the water and put it down in another location? Probably it will think the a teleportation took place. One instance the fish was near and the other instance it emerges there. Perhaps this is why fishs jump in the air - to apear from nowhere and confuse the pray. We have only 3D vision. We cannot imagine a movement in the fourth-dimension and will assume we are moving toward a new 3D location even if we are moving in the fourth-dimension direction, but if we can move deep into the 4th dimension and disappear from people eye, and then reapear in another location – that is teleportation. Problems to prove a 4D universe. A fish can move in the third dimension by changing its fin’s angel. How can we move in the fourth direction? · It seems that we are not equipped to move in this direction which indicates that perhaps there is no fourth-dimension, as it should be an evolutionary advantage to who ever could move in the fourth dimension. But still perhaps the mutation to have such ability was not yet found or was not very useful. But that does not prove there is no 4th dimension. · A fish will notice that an object changes its form when it moves and turns (because it is 3 dimensional and not symmetric). Such phenomenon is not observed when we look at other objects, indicating that the objects we see are not four dimensional. But perhaps all 3D objects are not moving in the fourth dimension or they all are entangled. If entangled electron is indeed adjacent to the other electron in the fourth dimension and decoherence make them move apart, it really means that when we are in a coherence system there is no movement in the fourth dimension and we cannot see a difference when an object is moving.

It is possible, there can be an explanation we do not know yet. If not all objects in the universe are four dimensional objects, then we have to embrace the more complicated Brane theory that place the three dimension objects on 3 dimension branes residing in the four dimension bulk. Gravitons can be in the bulk (or another brane) according to this theory. Can we do it as well? Anyway the hierarchy problem, and the entanglement phenomenon, are best explained as a four dimensional objects. Can we prove the existence of the fourth-dimension? The fact that assuming the 4D universe explains many riddles in physics and unify theories is in its self a prove of the existence of the 4D universe. According to Einstein, the phenomenon of gravity is due to the distortion of the geometry of three dimensional spatial space in the vicinity of large mass - creating a socket into which the less massive bodies roll. The question arises; where to the three-dimensional space can distort? The obvious answer is - to the fourth spatial dimension. If the distortion is relatively small, like what happens near the sun, it allows for attracting smaller masses (like planets) towards the sun. Scientists measured light deviation from a distant star passing near the sun, proving Einstein's explanation of gravity's nature. The study of black holes can produce another proof. Physicists proposes to prove the existence of a fourth-dimension by finding typical fourth-dimension particles of the in the new powerful collider. Note: Introducing the 4th dimension gives us another degree of freedom, like that of mufti-universes in Everett interpretation. This can interpret quantum mechanic in a more elegant way. Note: There may be time-dimensions as well. It can explain many unexplained mysteries, but this is a very complicated issue to be discussed in another article. Road-map for further investigation. Now we have to examine our world again with the assumption that we live in an extra dimensional world and not in our three spatial dimensions we used to think we are in. Basic assumptions To explain the mysterious phenomena of quantum mechanics, we first have to explore the essence of some of the basic features of physics. We can define them only by what we measure, and we must take into account the interactions done in the measuring process. We can introduce hypotheses regarding their essence, but the experimental physicists have to verify them. We also have to be aware that sometimes our measurements change the measuring object, and sometimes they measure something else. For example, we can measure wave energy, and think we measure mass. Some hypothesis is listed here: What is the spin? We know that spin has nothing to do with a spinning particle, but we do not know what spin is. If an electron spins around the core of an atom, it will induce a magnetic field, lose energy, and fall toward the core. The fact that it does not fall indicates that it resides as a standing wave in the distance proportional to its energy. Still, the standing wave oscillates, creating a small magnetic field that can be only in two states because there is only up or downstate in the standing wave. That is what we measure in the Garlich experiment. Maybe spin is an attribute of the electron that resides in a 4-dimensional universe (or more) and affects the lower-dimensions. What is a wave We specify a wave as a ripple of something. It can be a wave of gravity, light, mass, or any other object. A wave can come in two forms: Matter (or other stuff) is transferred from one place to the other - in this case, the material can pass through space (like light). There is a disturbance - change in amplitude, while the carrying matter stays. In this case, there must be a material base (ether). What are mass and energy? We know the resistance to acceleration measures that mass, but we also know that mass can become energy according to the Einstein formula E = mc2. So one wonders if a measurement of a wave (which is energy) cannot, under certain conditions, seen as mass. Einstein found that lightwave comes as packets. Physicists call these packets – particles, a misleading name. One can think that light waves are made of matter and disregard their wave's nature. Two slit experiments prove them wrong. Wave packets of light (or any other waveform) act like waves and still can impact when colliding with other particles. Particle and wave are not different. Explanation of quantum phenomena 1. Spin behavior of entangled electrons. Separating two entangled electrons in the 3-dimensional space does not separate them in the higher dimensions. Changing the spin direction of one electron will instantly change the spin direction of the adjutant entangled electron. We can explain this idea by imagining two people standing far apart on a flat surface. Both will measure the same atmospheric pressure because they are still in the same place (height) regarding the third dimension, no matter how far we separate on the plain. Axel Dietrich 1 * & Willem Been suggested this in their paper "An Extra-Dimensional Approach of Entanglement," the same approach, except that their extra dimension is a small curled hidden dimension. Small extra dimension does not explain entanglement experiments showing this phenomenon to exist over vast distances (currently 400 KM), which drove some well-known physic scientists to except large extra dimension (LED). Scientists fail to recognize large spatial dimensions because we humans cannot see it. The fact that we cannot experience the fourth dimension or many other natural phenomena is due to the way of developments in the evolutionary process to develop only traits that help us survive. A thesis should explain all other strange phenomena we encounter in quantum experiments, the strange behavior of the electron's spin when measured by the Stern-Garlach machine, and the two-slit experiment. 1. The measuring problem Schr dinger equations cannot explain the collapse of superposition. Copenhagen in ? terpretation, assumes that consciousness forces the collapse of superposition. The superposition idea was suggested to explain the slits experiments. If we can explain these experiments in another way, there will be no justification for the idea of superposition. Here is the explanation: Any measurement exerts force on the measured item; therefore probably the measuring device exerts force forcing the collapse if there is really superposition phenomenon (see discussion of this subject). Consciousness cannot exert force because there is no mental consciousness and even if there was such mental consciousness, it could not exert force. 2. Stern-Garlach spin measurements All deflections are the same in all dimensions. The fact that the electron and we all, are in our 4D universe does not affect the Stern-Gerlach spin detector device which is also in 4D space. According to the proposed spin explanation (see basic assumptions section), there is no preferred direction (the electron has standing waves that produce the spin all over); thus, there is no preference for the direction of the device. Every direction we choose, there is spin up and the opposite spin down. When the electron orbit is shifted by the device, then enter another device in the same direction (X), it still retains its original spin (up or down), but if the second device is placed in the perpendicular direction (Y) it is shifted from the original direction and enters the third device in another angular place of the electron, where the electron has standing waves as well, it loses its selection (as up or down). All this explains experiments 1-5. In experiment 6, the two-electron rays (up and down) are combined to retain the original direction (no shifting); thus, the original spin direction of the first device (X) is retained, and we get the results of experiment 2. In experiment 7, no such combination is done, and we get the result of experiment 3. Experiment 1 Experiment 2 One hundred percent of the electrons with the right spin is detected, thus ensuring the spin direction. Experiment 3 The experiment shows that the spin in the X direction is independent of the spin in the Y direction. It does not contradict the proposed spin explanation if the measurement is exactly perpendicular. For the things to happen in the following parts of the article, we note what happens when the second field is neither ninety degrees to the first field (x and y) nor parallel to it (x and x), but another angle. Here the electrons will split in two but a different ratio of the half. The ratio will depend on the angle: If we checked electrons that came out of the first field, then the more the direction of the second field would be different from the first field, the more would decrease in favor of the "down": for example, at 60 degrees 3/4 of the electrons came out. At 90 degrees (field-y), the ratio is half; At an angle of 120 degrees, a quarter came out; And finally, in the 180-degree direction (the opposite field in the first direction), everyone went down. Experiment 4 Adding a new detection proves that all electrons with one spin are detected (the same experiment we did in experiment 2). Experiment 5 If we pass the electron through a new field in the X direction (instead of Y in the previous experiment), we might expect, since these are electrons with spin-x 'up', which they all came out up. The wonder and wonder: they split again half-past; Now let us change the exercise a bit: Take electrons we know to have spin-x 'up,' and move them in a magnetic y field so that they split in half. Then we will unite the two beams again, by diverting them (using another magnetic field, which will serve as a "mirror"). Finally, at their point of intersection, we will measure spin-x again. This time we will accept that spin-x is 'up': Experiment 6 What happened here? This time, the electrons seemed to "remember" their spin-x, even though we measured them spin-y! But you cannot say exactly that we "measured" spin-y, because we do not know, for every electron, in which direction it came out of the field-y. We see here that not just moving in a magnetic field y spoils the spin-x; you need to know what the spin-y is. Experiment 7 The electrons split in half according to their spin direction. It should be noted that all these experiments should be performed in a "sterile" environment, not only in a vacuum but also in light isolation. Collisions of photons (light particles) in electrons will destroy these orbits. But precisely by the controlled sending of single photons, and tracking their trajectories, it is sometimes possible to "track" the single electron without interfering with it: there is a chance of knowing which path the electron exits from the field-y, and so that the electron will reach the field-x ( And we will measure spin-x). If we do, we will get a similar result to the checkpoint case: If we know the electron has moved from the top (because it reacted there with a photon), then we will necessarily measure it spin-x 'up'. If we know that the electron has moved from the bottom (for a similar reason), we will even measure spin-x 'up'. Those electrons that did not react with a photon, and do not know which path they went through, would divide half and half between the two spin-x values. 3. Slits experiments The slit experiments were devised to decide if light behaves like waves or particles. It showed that light possesses wave behaviors. Einstein argues (and got Novel price for it) that light acts as particles. However, light behaves as both. Wave packets can make an impact when colliding and still interfere with other wave sources. Later it was found that all particles behave in this dualistic way. Assuming this, slit experiments can be explained in the following way: Experiment 1 - One slit seems to give the result of a particle – but even a wave passing through one slit gives a line because there is no interference, (except the small self-interference due to the width of the slit) the same way a large number of particles do. Although the experiment is done with one electron at a time, we can observe the screen only after executing the experiment many times. Experiment 2 - 2 slits exhibit the electrons as a wave, which is always true. The electron is a wave. Otherwise, electrons circulating the core in any atom will emit electromagnetic energy (because they have an electric charge) and fall to the core. I assume that the electron is just a standing wave of mass residing around the core, with the intensity proportional to its energy. It is measured as a mass when most of the wave energy is concentrated. Although only one electron participates in the test, the electron wave can pass through both slits, and the output of the two slits interfere. Experiment 3 - Detector on one of the slits - causes the Interference to disappear. One possible explanation can be that power exerted by the detector (each measurement exerts a force on the measured element), pushing the electrons wave packets together, concentrating them and forcing most of them to run through the other slit. Confirmation of this explanation can be shown when the detector impact the incoming electron, is when we execute the experiment with detectors with different resolution. High resolution exerts a great deal of power, which results in like particle behavior results (as explained here). In contrast, low resolution (or unplugging the detector altogether) does not force enough to measure the result as if it were a particle. The detector does not determine where the electron (or photon) goes because results can only be seen in the accumulation of electrons and then we cannot know if each electron enters only through a single slit, or that each electron enters through both. Another explanation attributes Fourier transformation to the slit (like the Fourier transformation done when light passes through a lens). What we see on the screen is a relative distribution of frequency rather than space. Mathematics shows that the position on the screen is related to the wavelength according to the Fourier transform.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????conclusion

Still, many questions remain to be explained by the best research analysis. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????