//
Quickread
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
Huffpost Science
  • Like
    Like
    524k524k
  • Newsletters
    Get ScienceNewsletters
  • Huffington Post Search
    Search The Huffington Post
THE BLOG
Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Lawrence M. Krauss Headshot
Lawrence M. Krauss Become a fan
Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University; Author, 'A Universe From Nothing'

The Big Unanswered Questions

Posted: Updated:
DARK MATTER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Science, in its effort to unravel the rules governing the workings of nature, is all about asking the right questions. These questions, whose answers may be forever elusive, nevertheless frame the direction of scientific research, sometimes for decades or longer. In the process, new unexpected discoveries are made that refine or even change what the questions are. The process has continued successfully for over 400 years, and shows no signs of abating.
At the same time, it is important to distinguish between those questions that are answerable in principle and those that are not, and also between those questions whose answers can be practically obtained in the near or medium term. Graduate students in physics, for example, often enter graduate school with grand goals of discovering the Theory of Everything. But, as my friend and Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek likes to say, what we really need is a Theory of Something!
With these issues as a guide, at the invitation of the editors of The Huffington Post, I list below a few of the burning questions that are driving the fields of cosmology and particle physics. The first two are being addressed by ongoing experiments that might shed significant light within the next decade. The last two are foundational questions whose resolution may be around the corner, but only if we are extremely lucky, or may take centuries if at all, depending on the kindness of nature as we probe it experimentally. Good ideas are much harder to come by than good experiments, so if a new good idea is required to resolve these foundational issues, all bets are off. It took a long time between Newton and Einstein to refine the theory of gravity after all.
What is the nature of Dark Matter?
Since the 1970's, when the evidence that the mass of our own galaxy, and indeed essentially all galaxies we can see, was dominated by some material other than stars and hot gas, the question of the nature of this 'dark matter' has played a central role in both cosmology and particle theory. As time progressed it became clear that dark matter dominates not only galaxies, but clusters of galaxies, and is over 10 times more abundant than all visible matter in the Universe.
With this abundance, arguments stemming from our understanding of the origin of light elements in the Big Bang imply that this material cannot be made of normal matter, i.e. matter comprised of protons, neutrons and electrons, the building blocks of all atoms. If instead, it is made from a new type of elementary particle that doesn't interact with electromagnetically, dark matter would exist as a diffuse gas or particles permeating throughout galaxies, including our own. As a result, it is not just "out there," it is "in here," going through you and me, the whole earth, and the computer I type this on.
This possibility provides both a challenge and an opportunity. Without knowing the identity of dark matter, attempts to detect it directly on earth require making some educated guesses about what it might be. However, there is at least the possibility of detecting it directly! Such detection could reveal not only the nature of what makes up the dominant matter in the universe, but also could tell us something fundamental about elementary particles and forces.
It is therefore particularly appropriate that there are two different approaches to detecting dark matter: (1) deep underground detectors hoping to detect minuscule signals from the rare dark matter particles that might actually scatter off an atomic nucleus and deposit energy, and (2) The Large Hadron Collider, which has turned on again, and may recreate briefly the conditions in the very early universe in which these new elementary particles were created, producing enough of them to be detected in collisions.

There is thus a race on right now, between direct detection of primordial dark matter underground, and the LHC, to see who might discover it first. Either set could easily announce a discovery this decade... Or, we may be wrong about its nature and need to go back to the drawing board.
Why is the Weak force Weak?
The Large Hadron Collider of course already has done more than search for dark matter. It did, after all, discover the Higgs particle, the last jewel in the crown that is the Standard Model of particle physics. Nevertheless, each new discovery in physics generates more questions. The Higgs endows the particles that convey the weak force with their masses. These in turn determine the nature of that force. But why does the Higgs exist at the scale it does? Why is the weak force so much weaker than, say, the strong force, and why are these forces, including electromagnetism, so much stronger than the force of gravity?
It is these questions that we hope the LHC will shed light on as it probes further, following its recent upgrade in energy and beam intensity. And interestingly, dark matter may play a role here as well. Perhaps the most interesting possible explanation of why the weak scale is what it is posits the existence of a new symmetry in nature, called Supersymmetry, that predicts a whole new set of elementary particles that have not yet been seen. The lightest of these could be absolutely stable, and is a prime candidate for dark matter. So, if the LHC discovers this particle it could not only unravel the mystery of dark matter, but also perhaps shed light on Supersymmetry, and beyond that, on the unification of all forces. Thus, we are waiting with great anticipation to what the LHC will report after its next year or two of operation.
Is Our Universe Unique?
Perhaps one of the most fundamental questions in physics, and indeed the question that Einstein himself mused about when he questioned whether 'God' had any choice in the creation of the universe (where of course he was speaking metaphorically and not literally), is whether our universe is unique, and whether the laws of physics are themselves unique and fixed. Would a small change in even one of the fundamental constants cause the whole edifice to crumble?
This question, while fundamental, may also seem completely inaccessible. After all, we only have access to our universe, so speculating about other universes may seem like pure metaphysics. This of course has not caused such speculation to disappear, and in fact, most extensions of the Standard Model of Particle physics suggest that our universe is not likely to be unique at all, and the perhaps the nature of elementary particles and fields that we observe may be due to pure chance.
What makes this question potentially more interesting is that we might get some indirect experimental hints of the existence of other universes, even if we may never directly observe them. Recently the BICEP2 experiment at the South Pole claimed to detect gravitational waves from the very early universe. Unfortunately it appears that the signal was probably due to foreground noise from our own galaxy. Nevertheless, if future experiments definitively detect such a background it would provide evidence of a process in the very early universe called Inflation, which, besides explaining many features of our observed universe at large scales, generically creates many other universes in the process as well. If we could measure these waves precisely, we could probe the possible nature of Inflation precisely, and in so doing explore the physics that led to the generation of our observable universe, and possibly others. In that way, while we might never have direct access to other such possible universes, we might have strong indirect evidence of their existence.
What is the nature of Nothing?
I couldn't resist saving this for last, as it is, after all, the subject of my most recent book. But I don't want to get hung up here with the contentious definitions of nothing. Here I simply refer to empty space, and to the remarkable discovery 15 years or so ago that empty space contains most of the energy in the universe, for reasons we don't understand at all. This energy is causing the observed expansion of the universe to accelerate, and will ultimately determine the future of our universe. There are a host of astrophysical observations now underway to try and shed light on the mystery of this 'dark energy' as it has become known, but at present we are no closer to understanding its origin than we were when it was first discovered. Is it truly the 'quantum energy of the vacuum', or is it associated with some new invisible field permeating all of space, or perhaps to something even more exotic?
I expect that without a full theory of quantum gravity we won't be able to fully resolve this problem, and that may take centuries. But I have been wrong before, and perhaps one of the upcoming probes of the expansion of the universe will reveal a new wrinkle that will point us in the right direction. That is why we simply have to keep trying. You never know in advance.
This post is part of a series commemorating The Huffington Post's 10 Year Anniversary through expert opinions looking forward to the next decade in their respective fields. To see all of the posts in the series, read here.
 
Click here to view Conversations

Conversations

Add a comment

 

.
 
.
.
Your comment may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
.
  • Conrad Christian · Top Commenter · Los Angeles, California
    Thank you Dr Krauss for the tireless work you do as a educator and being on the frontline of science communication or as you put it "teaching is selling" science.
       
      .
      .
      Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
      .
      .
    • Valeriy Polulyakh · Top Commenter · Moscow State University
      It was said, that if the theory describes all known facts then this theory is probably wrong because there are always some wrong facts. The Standard Model of particle physics does not incorporate the physics of GR and it is not consistent with the Standard Model of cosmology with its dark energy and dark matter. The questions are arising. Do we really have a wrong Standard Model of the particles which can not explain 96% of our world? Or is the Standard Model of cosmology not correct since it requires all this non-existing dark matter and dark energy?
         
        .
        .
        Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
        .
        .
      • James Redford
        Hi, Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss. In answer to your questions:

        1.) The dark matter is a manifestation of an interchange of energy between the Higgs field and the initial SU(2)_L gauge field required by the Standard Model of particle physics.

        2.) Regarding the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics, including the weak force: within the Omega Point cosmology required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), these parameters take on all mathematically-possible values consistent with the universe starting at the Big Bang initial singularity and ending at the Omega Point final singularity, with the values gradually scaling in time during the evolution of the universe.

        3.) One can derive the known laws of physics a priori. The only reason they w...ere not derived a priori historically is because no one had been smart enough to do so. So empiricism was used as a necessary crutch for human minds in discovering the known laws of physics. But now that we do have these known physical laws, we can see mathematically how there was no contingency in regards to them, i.e., in order to have a three-dimensional space in which beings complex enough to be self-aware can exist, the physical laws have to mathematically be the ones we actually observe. And so these known laws of physics are not going to start being disconfirmed, unless we already exist in a computer simulation and the beings running that simulation decide to alter the simulated environment (however, those beings themselves would have to exist in a universe where the aforesaid known laws of physics are in operation).

        For the details on how the known laws of physics are actually mathematically unavoidable if one is to have a three-dimensional world with self-aware beings in it, see my below resource, particularly the section wherein I give commentary concerning your 2007 debate with physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler, and the section regarding the Turing Church Online Workshop:

        * James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo .

        However, Quantum Mechanics is inherently multiversal, and so every universe of the Many-Worlds Interpretation consistent with starting at the Big Bang initial singularity and ending at the Omega Point final singularity exists. For more on this, see, e.g., Frank J. Tipler, "Quantum nonlocality does not exist", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 111, No. 31 (Aug. 5, 2014), pp. 11281-11286, doi:10.1073/pnas.1324238111.

        Regarding Inflation, the known physical laws require the wave function of the universe to have initially been a Dirac delta function, which explains the observed flatness of the universe without resorting to nonempirical new physics such as Inflation Theory (requiring the unobserved inflation field, i.e., inflaton particles), but rather is simply quantum kinematics: a result of wave-packet spreading.

        4.) As required by the Standard Model of particle physics, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the observed positive cosmological constant, i.e., the dark energy. Also, spacetime is not "nothing".

        Pertaining to quantum gravity, the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg theory of quantum gravity is the unique quantization of General Relativity, i.e., it's the only way mathematically to quantize General Relativity, since gravity in General Relativity is a spin-2 field, and quantizing a spin-2 field requires it to be a spacetime metric and imposes the full GL(4, R) symmetry group of General Relativity.

        For more on this, see the aforecited resource concerning your Caltech debate, and see also my following article on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics. The Omega Point cosmology demonstrates that the above-said known laws of physics require that the universe end in the Omega Point: the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity having all the unique properties traditionally claimed for God, and of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

        * James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 . See More
        • John Gorn · Top Commenter
          Not sure why almost every physics article has a comment like this, incredibly long-winded and full of brain-cramping terminology stated in absolutist terms of being certain truth. I'm sure Dr. Krauss has better things to do than to debunk every crackpot proposal dumped in his lap.

          As my time is of less value than Dr. Krauss, I can afford five minutes to the job. This is what Mr. Redford has to say once you unwind all of the technobabble prose:

          "The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional definitions of God held by almost all of the world’s leading religions. Hence, by definition, the ...Omega Point is God."

          Well, since within the confines of the universe, no information is lost and the sum total of all energy and matter is always the same, if the Omega Point (proposed final singularity) contains everything and is therefore omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then the same can be said of the totality of the universe at this moment. Ergo, the universe is god. No need to appeal to an Omega point.

          But note that Mr. Redford capitalizes the G in god, because pantheism is not what he is about. He goes on to state that this proposed god is "personal" and in fact is the same god of "all the Abrahamic religions". This rather broad logical leap is not given an explanation.

          Further, the fact that the totality of the universe, by definition, contains the sum of all information, does not make it omnicient. Containing information is not the same as being sentient. Further, containing all energy does not make the universe omnipotent - all powerful, able to do anything. It is only able to do everything that can be done, and that's quite a different thing. And what about being omnipresent - everywhere at the same time? Well at a point of singularity you could say "everywhere" exists at that same point, but at infinite density this rather constrains what an entity could do about it. In fact that entity would be itself by infinitely dense and infinitely at the mercy of whatever physics applies in such a situation. Further, said entity would exist only in that universe and not in any other, thus losing out on all of the previously proposed "omnis".

          There is much more than this, but the fact is the initial assertions are nonsense, so the hundreds of pages of babble heaped on top of it fail to hold any merit or meaning.

          Sorry Mr. Redford. See More
          Reply · Like
          · 2 · about an hour ago
          .
        • James Redford
          Hi, John Gorn. You wrote,

          ""
          Not sure why almost every physics article has a comment like this, incredibly long-winded and full of brain-cramping terminology stated in absolutist terms of being certain truth. I'm sure Dr. Krauss has better things to do than to debunk every crackpot proposal dumped in his lap.
          ""

          Bear in mind that physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. Further, the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). These aforesaid known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. As Pr...of. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

          You go on to write:

          ""
          Further, the fact that the totality of the universe, by definition, contains the sum of all information, does not make it omnicient. Containing information is not the same as being sentient. Further, containing all energy does not make the universe omnipotent - all powerful, able to do anything. It is only able to do everything that can be done, and that's quite a different thing. And what about being omnipresent - everywhere at the same time? Well at a point of singularity you could say "everywhere" exists at that same point, but at infinite density this rather constrains what an entity could do about it. In fact that entity would be itself by infinitely dense and infinitely at the mercy of whatever physics applies in such a situation. Further, said entity would exist only in that universe and not in any other, thus losing out on all of the previously proposed "omnis".
          ""

          The universe is finite in information at any given time within spacetime. However, the aforesaid known physical laws mathematically require that sapient intelligence grow without bound going into the Omega Point final singularity, with sapience becoming literally infinite in intelligence at the Omega Point. For the details on this, see Sec. 3: "Physics of the Omega Point Cosmology", Subsec. 3.1: "The Omega Point", pp. 12-19 of my following article:

          * James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708

          Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

          * James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss’s Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo See More
          Reply · Like
          · about a minute ago
          .
         
        .
        .
        Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
        .
        .
      • Maziar Malek · Top Commenter
        The universe cannot be expanding. The universe is infinite, and "where" does the infinite "expand" into? I believe it is imperative that always, when we talk about "expansion of the universe", we add the word "observable" in there. Yes, the "observable universe", for the time being, SEEMS to be expanding. And about the missing "mass" and the "missing" energy: Could these be explained by the inertia of everything in the "observable" universe traveling through the "infinite" space at extremely high speeds? Do we know all implications of “extremely high speeds” never experienced directly by human beings?
        • Dane Curbow · Top Commenter
          I don't think you understand space time or the universe. It is expanding.

          High speeds never experienced by humans? Speed relates to reference frames. The only things humans experience is acceleration. Because as I sit here typing I am moving 0m/s relative to the Earth. But I am also moving 30,000m/s as the Earth orbits Sol. Oh also I am moving 220,000m/s as Sol orbits the center of the galaxy. Please ask questions when you don't understand, but don't make statements with no bearing when you don't understand.
          Reply · Like
          · 1 · about an hour ago
          .
        • Ian Mark Savage · Merchandiser at Columbia Distributing
          First of all the observable universe is just as far back as we can see, towards the particle horizon where there just hasn't been enough time for photons to reach us from the 46 billion light years or so away from us. Now cosmologists don't actually refer to the universe to be infinite, moreso unbound. Now before the Big Bang there was no space or time, the universe ripped into existence at that moment, so the universe is expanding into itself. Even though asking what was before the Big Bang is irrelevant, we can postulate that there was a sort of quantum foam that made up the nothing, and through quantum fluctuations a process called inflation created the early universe.
          Reply · Like
          · about an hour ago
          .
        • John Gorn · Top Commenter
          The content of the universe is not infinite. The distance between components of that content is expanding. An often used metaphor is a balloon. If the balloon has a pattern of stars printed on it, when you blow air into the balloon the surface area expands. As it does so, the distance between the stars increases, but neither the quantity of stars nor the quantity of their constituent atoms increases.
          Reply · Like
          · 58 minutes ago
          .
         
        .
        .
        Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
        .
        .
      • George Stevens · Top Commenter
        "Would a small change in even one of the fundamental constants cause the whole edifice to crumble?" Given the likelihood that there are mathematical relationships between the constants (a "theory of everything") one probably cannot change the value of one constant without altering all the others. And given that it was possible to make such a change, the resulting universe would still likely be capable of interesting self-aware assemblages. In the US each of us has a unique telephone number composed of 10 digits. The probability that any one person has the number she does is nearly zero. But everyone has a number. The same is true for universes.
           
          .
          .
          Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
          .
          .
        • Hemchand Tularam · American InterContinental University
          This is great! The Science of God is the top science we should focus on... Anything that's created by mankind in any forms (to include education) has many faults... My best recommendation is to study Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam translated by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada... And, if you or anyone is favor by the Supreme Lord, He may remove His powerful illusory energy, so as the seeker may get a better understanding... Again, please study Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam... And maybe..........
          • David Corpus · Top Commenter
            Because the Mahabharata and Bhāgavata have many discussions about the nature of Dark Matter, the Higgs particle, a rigged dice game and a blue guy with four arms. The first word of this article was Science, but I guess you deny it's definition.
            Reply · Like
            · 3 · Edited · 3 hours ago
            .
          • Ray Kraft · Top Commenter
            You mean the "Theory of God?"

            Science is the study of that which can be observed, or confirmed experimentally, or demonstrated mathematically, to date we have no experimental or observational or mathematical evidence for God.
            Reply · Like
            · 1 · 3 hours ago
            .
          • Ray Kraft · Top Commenter
            The Theory of God.

            In order to do scientific work on the Theory of God we'd first have to define what, exactly, is "God?" Unless we know exactly what we mean by "God" we can't even begin to determine whether he, she, it, or they, whatever it or they are, really exists.

            That said, a-scientific Faith and Belief in God, whatever God is, gives hope and comfort to billions.
            Reply · Like
            · 1 · 3 hours ago
            .
           
          .
          .
          Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
          .
          .
        • Frank Langelotti · Top Commenter
          Many great minds have attempted to understand and explain the forces of Nature and the forces that govern the cosmos for many, many yrs, and they have died, mankind will die, the earth will die, the universe will die; so what is it all about and does it make a difference in how we conduct ourselves in this moment of time. Science is attempting to answer the How of things, it can never answer the Why of things; except to say it is an anomaly,an accident, if so, why bother!
          • Dane Curbow · Top Commenter
            Why bother? You realize the entirety of your life and its comforts hinges on the fact that there are men and women out there who just can't stop asking "Why?", even if it only deals with the "How" of things. It is HOW you have a computer, it is HOW you have medicine, it is HOW the modern world exists as it is. Without those great minds your above comment would never exist.
            Reply · Like
            · 2 · about an hour ago
            .
           
          .
          .
          Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
          .
          .
        • Jason Palmer · Top Commenter
          Love your work, DR. Krauss! Keep asking and keep searching. We may never find all of the answers but at least we know that we're asking decent questions which at least some kind of potential answer. Any scientific question beats the pants off of a knock at the door and a rhetorical one about whether I've found Jesus.
             
            .
            .
            Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
            .
            .
          • Chuck Keyser · Top Commenter · Flamenco Guitarist, Physicist at Retired
            There are some who think the CBR may be just noise.... and that Dark Matter may be just matter that is not, uh, visible.... that is, we are stuck with either covariance and contra-variance but not both... except for those who can travel faster than thought..... :)
            • Chuck Keyser · Top Commenter · Flamenco Guitarist, Physicist at Retired
              Science suggests that after the Big Bang, god smoked a cigarette, rolled over, went to sleep, and hasn't been heard from since.

              However, the Bibble teaches that he woke up, knocked up a poor carpenter’s fiancé, convinced the locals that it was a virgin birth, and then threw his illegitimate son under the bus when he turned out to be a liberal.

              The locals testified that the son appeared to them after his death, a story that perseveres to this day, often as images on the crusts of toasted cheese sandwiches.

              God has strong Republican CEO core values...

              And since when do Republican values have anything to do with Christianity?
              Reply · Like
              · 3 hours ago
              .
            • Chuck Keyser · Top Commenter · Flamenco Guitarist, Physicist at Retired
              And if they ever characterize the experimental results of the LHC correctly, they may be able to calculate its radius from first principles...
              Reply · Like
              · 2 hours ago
              .
             
            .
            .
            Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
            .
            .
          • Harold Shaw
            "The lightest of these could be absolutely stable, and is a prime candidate for dark matter."

            Does absolutely stable mean the particle would not decompose into more elementary particles?
               
              .
              .
              Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
              .
              .
            Advertisement
            Click to learn more...

            Suggested For You

            These stories are recommended for you by Gravity.
            The recommendations may include stories from our other publisher partners, some of whom pay to include their content here.

            FOLLOW HUFFPOST

            Use this form to alert a HuffPost editor about a factual or typographical error in this story.

            Notify message
            * Required
            * * .
            .
            * What kind of error is this?
            .
            * What is the correction? 0 count
            .
            * Type the words below so we know you are not a cyborg


            .
            Thanks for your report!
            0%
            10%
            20%
            30%
            40%
            50%
            60%
            70%
            80%
            90%
            100%