Do infinite dimensional systems make sense?












5












$begingroup$


I'm learning infinite-dimensional systems in mathematical viewpoint and trying to understand it from physical perspective.



I would like to understand if infinite-dimensional systems make sense in physics, especially when it becomes necessary in quantum control theory. Are there any simple and intuitive examples?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
    $endgroup$
    – John Forkosh
    18 hours ago
















5












$begingroup$


I'm learning infinite-dimensional systems in mathematical viewpoint and trying to understand it from physical perspective.



I would like to understand if infinite-dimensional systems make sense in physics, especially when it becomes necessary in quantum control theory. Are there any simple and intuitive examples?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
    $endgroup$
    – John Forkosh
    18 hours ago














5












5








5


1



$begingroup$


I'm learning infinite-dimensional systems in mathematical viewpoint and trying to understand it from physical perspective.



I would like to understand if infinite-dimensional systems make sense in physics, especially when it becomes necessary in quantum control theory. Are there any simple and intuitive examples?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




I'm learning infinite-dimensional systems in mathematical viewpoint and trying to understand it from physical perspective.



I would like to understand if infinite-dimensional systems make sense in physics, especially when it becomes necessary in quantum control theory. Are there any simple and intuitive examples?







quantum-mechanics hilbert-space






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 17 hours ago









Ruslan

9,81843173




9,81843173






New contributor




Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 19 hours ago









GaoGao

293




293




New contributor




Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
    $endgroup$
    – John Forkosh
    18 hours ago














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
    $endgroup$
    – John Forkosh
    18 hours ago








3




3




$begingroup$
"Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
$endgroup$
– John Forkosh
18 hours ago




$begingroup$
"Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
$endgroup$
– John Forkosh
18 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















21












$begingroup$

Welcome to Stack Exchange!



I do not know much about quantum control theory, but I can give you a simple example from regular quantum mechanics: that of a particle in a box. This is one of the simplest systems one can study in QM, but even here an infinite dimensional space shows up.

Indexing the energy eigenstates by $n$ so that $$H|nrangle=E_n|nrangle$$ there is an infinite number of possible states, one for every integer. Every state with its own energy: $$E_n=frac{n^2pi^2hbar^2}{2mL^2}.$$ Thus if you want to describe a general quantum state in this system you would write it down as $$|psirangle=sum_{n=1}^infty c_n|nrangle,$$ where $c_n$ is a complex number. $|psirangle$ is then an example of a vector in an infinite dimensional space where every possible state is a basis vector, and the $c_n$ are the expansion coefficients in that basis.



You can of course imagine the $n$ indexing some other collection of states of some other system. Indeed, in most cases the dimension of the space of all possible states of a quantum system will be infinite dimensional.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    3












    $begingroup$

    "Infinite" for me does not make much sense in physics. It is a nice mathematical tools, you need it to make calculations; but for real things I prefer "very large". I have seen many "very large" things; I have never seen anything infinite.



    Anyway, more seriously, we use all the time infinite dimensional spaces, they are useful. From the example of "particle in a box" by >JSorngard:



    You want to keep your particle in one eigenstate, against external disturbance. It can excape going to other eigenstates. Those, in theory, are infinite, so to calculate the probability for your particle to fall off from your favourite eigenstate, you sum the transition probability to each of all those (infinite) states. And it works!!



    In practice there are not really infinite eigenstates; the particle is confined by some actual physical trap that is finite in size and can hold only finite energy. But incredibly often you can disregard this finiteness, as the infinite sum is almost identical to the (very large) sum of the actual eigenstate.



    Another argument in favour of usefulness/reality of infinites is about notation: we use infinite things to define & manipulate a normal object.
    Example is the Taylor expansion of $e^x$:
    It is an infinite sum, its useful, don't give rise to anything nonsensical.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 2




      $begingroup$
      "I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
      $endgroup$
      – Orangesandlemons
      15 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
      $endgroup$
      – patta
      15 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
      $endgroup$
      – Martin Argerami
      14 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
      $endgroup$
      – patta
      14 hours ago














    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Gao is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470675%2fdo-infinite-dimensional-systems-make-sense%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    21












    $begingroup$

    Welcome to Stack Exchange!



    I do not know much about quantum control theory, but I can give you a simple example from regular quantum mechanics: that of a particle in a box. This is one of the simplest systems one can study in QM, but even here an infinite dimensional space shows up.

    Indexing the energy eigenstates by $n$ so that $$H|nrangle=E_n|nrangle$$ there is an infinite number of possible states, one for every integer. Every state with its own energy: $$E_n=frac{n^2pi^2hbar^2}{2mL^2}.$$ Thus if you want to describe a general quantum state in this system you would write it down as $$|psirangle=sum_{n=1}^infty c_n|nrangle,$$ where $c_n$ is a complex number. $|psirangle$ is then an example of a vector in an infinite dimensional space where every possible state is a basis vector, and the $c_n$ are the expansion coefficients in that basis.



    You can of course imagine the $n$ indexing some other collection of states of some other system. Indeed, in most cases the dimension of the space of all possible states of a quantum system will be infinite dimensional.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      21












      $begingroup$

      Welcome to Stack Exchange!



      I do not know much about quantum control theory, but I can give you a simple example from regular quantum mechanics: that of a particle in a box. This is one of the simplest systems one can study in QM, but even here an infinite dimensional space shows up.

      Indexing the energy eigenstates by $n$ so that $$H|nrangle=E_n|nrangle$$ there is an infinite number of possible states, one for every integer. Every state with its own energy: $$E_n=frac{n^2pi^2hbar^2}{2mL^2}.$$ Thus if you want to describe a general quantum state in this system you would write it down as $$|psirangle=sum_{n=1}^infty c_n|nrangle,$$ where $c_n$ is a complex number. $|psirangle$ is then an example of a vector in an infinite dimensional space where every possible state is a basis vector, and the $c_n$ are the expansion coefficients in that basis.



      You can of course imagine the $n$ indexing some other collection of states of some other system. Indeed, in most cases the dimension of the space of all possible states of a quantum system will be infinite dimensional.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        21












        21








        21





        $begingroup$

        Welcome to Stack Exchange!



        I do not know much about quantum control theory, but I can give you a simple example from regular quantum mechanics: that of a particle in a box. This is one of the simplest systems one can study in QM, but even here an infinite dimensional space shows up.

        Indexing the energy eigenstates by $n$ so that $$H|nrangle=E_n|nrangle$$ there is an infinite number of possible states, one for every integer. Every state with its own energy: $$E_n=frac{n^2pi^2hbar^2}{2mL^2}.$$ Thus if you want to describe a general quantum state in this system you would write it down as $$|psirangle=sum_{n=1}^infty c_n|nrangle,$$ where $c_n$ is a complex number. $|psirangle$ is then an example of a vector in an infinite dimensional space where every possible state is a basis vector, and the $c_n$ are the expansion coefficients in that basis.



        You can of course imagine the $n$ indexing some other collection of states of some other system. Indeed, in most cases the dimension of the space of all possible states of a quantum system will be infinite dimensional.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Welcome to Stack Exchange!



        I do not know much about quantum control theory, but I can give you a simple example from regular quantum mechanics: that of a particle in a box. This is one of the simplest systems one can study in QM, but even here an infinite dimensional space shows up.

        Indexing the energy eigenstates by $n$ so that $$H|nrangle=E_n|nrangle$$ there is an infinite number of possible states, one for every integer. Every state with its own energy: $$E_n=frac{n^2pi^2hbar^2}{2mL^2}.$$ Thus if you want to describe a general quantum state in this system you would write it down as $$|psirangle=sum_{n=1}^infty c_n|nrangle,$$ where $c_n$ is a complex number. $|psirangle$ is then an example of a vector in an infinite dimensional space where every possible state is a basis vector, and the $c_n$ are the expansion coefficients in that basis.



        You can of course imagine the $n$ indexing some other collection of states of some other system. Indeed, in most cases the dimension of the space of all possible states of a quantum system will be infinite dimensional.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 18 hours ago

























        answered 18 hours ago









        JSorngardJSorngard

        3316




        3316























            3












            $begingroup$

            "Infinite" for me does not make much sense in physics. It is a nice mathematical tools, you need it to make calculations; but for real things I prefer "very large". I have seen many "very large" things; I have never seen anything infinite.



            Anyway, more seriously, we use all the time infinite dimensional spaces, they are useful. From the example of "particle in a box" by >JSorngard:



            You want to keep your particle in one eigenstate, against external disturbance. It can excape going to other eigenstates. Those, in theory, are infinite, so to calculate the probability for your particle to fall off from your favourite eigenstate, you sum the transition probability to each of all those (infinite) states. And it works!!



            In practice there are not really infinite eigenstates; the particle is confined by some actual physical trap that is finite in size and can hold only finite energy. But incredibly often you can disregard this finiteness, as the infinite sum is almost identical to the (very large) sum of the actual eigenstate.



            Another argument in favour of usefulness/reality of infinites is about notation: we use infinite things to define & manipulate a normal object.
            Example is the Taylor expansion of $e^x$:
            It is an infinite sum, its useful, don't give rise to anything nonsensical.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 2




              $begingroup$
              "I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
              $endgroup$
              – Orangesandlemons
              15 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
              $endgroup$
              – patta
              15 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
              $endgroup$
              – Martin Argerami
              14 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
              $endgroup$
              – patta
              14 hours ago


















            3












            $begingroup$

            "Infinite" for me does not make much sense in physics. It is a nice mathematical tools, you need it to make calculations; but for real things I prefer "very large". I have seen many "very large" things; I have never seen anything infinite.



            Anyway, more seriously, we use all the time infinite dimensional spaces, they are useful. From the example of "particle in a box" by >JSorngard:



            You want to keep your particle in one eigenstate, against external disturbance. It can excape going to other eigenstates. Those, in theory, are infinite, so to calculate the probability for your particle to fall off from your favourite eigenstate, you sum the transition probability to each of all those (infinite) states. And it works!!



            In practice there are not really infinite eigenstates; the particle is confined by some actual physical trap that is finite in size and can hold only finite energy. But incredibly often you can disregard this finiteness, as the infinite sum is almost identical to the (very large) sum of the actual eigenstate.



            Another argument in favour of usefulness/reality of infinites is about notation: we use infinite things to define & manipulate a normal object.
            Example is the Taylor expansion of $e^x$:
            It is an infinite sum, its useful, don't give rise to anything nonsensical.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 2




              $begingroup$
              "I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
              $endgroup$
              – Orangesandlemons
              15 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
              $endgroup$
              – patta
              15 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
              $endgroup$
              – Martin Argerami
              14 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
              $endgroup$
              – patta
              14 hours ago
















            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            "Infinite" for me does not make much sense in physics. It is a nice mathematical tools, you need it to make calculations; but for real things I prefer "very large". I have seen many "very large" things; I have never seen anything infinite.



            Anyway, more seriously, we use all the time infinite dimensional spaces, they are useful. From the example of "particle in a box" by >JSorngard:



            You want to keep your particle in one eigenstate, against external disturbance. It can excape going to other eigenstates. Those, in theory, are infinite, so to calculate the probability for your particle to fall off from your favourite eigenstate, you sum the transition probability to each of all those (infinite) states. And it works!!



            In practice there are not really infinite eigenstates; the particle is confined by some actual physical trap that is finite in size and can hold only finite energy. But incredibly often you can disregard this finiteness, as the infinite sum is almost identical to the (very large) sum of the actual eigenstate.



            Another argument in favour of usefulness/reality of infinites is about notation: we use infinite things to define & manipulate a normal object.
            Example is the Taylor expansion of $e^x$:
            It is an infinite sum, its useful, don't give rise to anything nonsensical.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            "Infinite" for me does not make much sense in physics. It is a nice mathematical tools, you need it to make calculations; but for real things I prefer "very large". I have seen many "very large" things; I have never seen anything infinite.



            Anyway, more seriously, we use all the time infinite dimensional spaces, they are useful. From the example of "particle in a box" by >JSorngard:



            You want to keep your particle in one eigenstate, against external disturbance. It can excape going to other eigenstates. Those, in theory, are infinite, so to calculate the probability for your particle to fall off from your favourite eigenstate, you sum the transition probability to each of all those (infinite) states. And it works!!



            In practice there are not really infinite eigenstates; the particle is confined by some actual physical trap that is finite in size and can hold only finite energy. But incredibly often you can disregard this finiteness, as the infinite sum is almost identical to the (very large) sum of the actual eigenstate.



            Another argument in favour of usefulness/reality of infinites is about notation: we use infinite things to define & manipulate a normal object.
            Example is the Taylor expansion of $e^x$:
            It is an infinite sum, its useful, don't give rise to anything nonsensical.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 15 hours ago









            pattapatta

            613




            613








            • 2




              $begingroup$
              "I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
              $endgroup$
              – Orangesandlemons
              15 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
              $endgroup$
              – patta
              15 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
              $endgroup$
              – Martin Argerami
              14 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
              $endgroup$
              – patta
              14 hours ago
















            • 2




              $begingroup$
              "I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
              $endgroup$
              – Orangesandlemons
              15 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
              $endgroup$
              – patta
              15 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
              $endgroup$
              – Martin Argerami
              14 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
              $endgroup$
              – patta
              14 hours ago










            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            "I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
            $endgroup$
            – Orangesandlemons
            15 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            "I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
            $endgroup$
            – Orangesandlemons
            15 hours ago




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
            $endgroup$
            – patta
            15 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
            $endgroup$
            – patta
            15 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
            $endgroup$
            – Martin Argerami
            14 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
            $endgroup$
            – Martin Argerami
            14 hours ago




            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
            $endgroup$
            – patta
            14 hours ago






            $begingroup$
            Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
            $endgroup$
            – patta
            14 hours ago












            Gao is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Gao is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Gao is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Gao is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470675%2fdo-infinite-dimensional-systems-make-sense%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Statuo de Libereco

            Tanganjiko

            Liste der Baudenkmäler in Enneberg