From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

First published Wed 29 Nov, 2000

Quantum mechanics is, at least at first glance and at least in part, a mathematical machine for predicting the behaviors of microscopic particles — or, at least, of the measuring instruments we use to explore those behaviors — and in that capacity, it is spectacularly successful: in terms of power and precision, head and shoulders above any theory we have ever had. Mathematically, the theory is well understood; we know what its parts are, how they are put together, and why, in the mechanical sense (i.e., in a sense that can be answered by describing the internal grinding of gear against gear), the whole thing performs the way it does, how the information that gets fed in at one end is converted into what comes out the other. The question of what kind of a world it describes, however, is controversial; there is very little agreement, among physicists and among philosophers, about what the world is like according to quantum mechanics. Minimally interpreted, the theory describes a set of facts about the way the microscopic world impinges on the macroscopic one, how it affects our measuring instruments, described in everyday language or the language of classical mechanics. Disagreement centers on the question of what a microscopic world, which affects our apparatuses in the prescribed manner, is, or even could be, like intrinsically; or how those apparatuses could themselves be built out of microscopic parts of the sort the theory describes.[1]

That is what an interpretation of the theory would provide: a proper account of what the world is like according to quantum mechanics, intrinsically and from the bottom up. The problems with giving an interpretation (not just a comforting, homey sort of interpretation, i.e., not just an interpretation according to which the world isn't too different from the familiar world of common sense, but any interpretation at all) are dealt with in other sections of this encyclopedia. Here, we are concerned only with the mathematical heart of the theory, the theory in its capacity as a mathematical machine, and — whatever is true of the rest of it — this part of the theory makes exquisitely good sense.

1. Terminology

Physical systems are divided into types according to their unchanging (or ‘state-independent’) properties, and the state of a system at a time consists of a complete specification of those of its properties that change with time (its ‘state-dependent’ properties). To give a complete description of a system, then, we need to say what type of system it is and what its state is at each moment in its history.

A physical quantity is a mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive family of physical properties (for those who know this way of talking, it is a family of properties with the structure of the cells in a partition). Knowing what kinds of values a quantity takes can tell us a great deal about the relations among the properties of which it is composed. The values of a bivalent quantity, for instance, form a set with two members; the values of a real-valued quantity form a set with the structure of the real numbers. This is a special case of something we will see again and again, viz., that knowing what kind of mathematical objects represent the elements in some set (here, the values of a physical quantity; later, the states that a system can assume, or the quantities pertaining to it) tells us a very great deal (indeed, arguably, all there is to know) about the relations among them.

In quantum mechanical contexts, the term ‘observable’ is used interchangeably with ‘physical quantity’, and should be treated as a technical term with the same meaning. It is no accident that the early developers of the theory chose the term, but the choice was made for reasons that are not, nowadays, generally accepted. The state-space of a system is the space formed by the set of its possible states,[2] i.e., the physically possible ways of combining the values of quantities that characterize it internally. In classical theories, a set of quantities which forms a supervenience basis for the rest is typically designated as ‘basic’ or ‘fundamental’, and, since any mathematically possible way of combining their values is a physical possibility, the state-space can be obtained by simply taking these as coordinates.[3] So, for instance, the state-space of a classical mechanical system composed of n particles, obtained by specifying the values of 6n real-valued quantities — three components of position, and three of momentum for each particle in the system — is a 6n-dimensional coordinate space. Each possible state of such a system corresponds to a point in the space, and each point in the space corresponds to a possible state of such a system. The situation is a little different in quantum mechanics, where there are mathematically describable ways of combining the values of the quantities that don't represent physically possible states. As we will see, the state-spaces of quantum mechanics are special kinds of vector spaces, known as Hilbert spaces, and they have more internal structure than their classical counterparts.

A structure is a set of elements on which certain operations and relations are defined, a mathematical structure is just a structure in which the elements are mathematical objects (numbers, sets, vectors) and the operations mathematical ones, and a model is a mathematical structure used to represent some physically significant structure in the world.

The heart and soul of quantum mechanics is contained in the Hilbert spaces that represent the state-spaces of quantum mechanical systems. The internal relations among states and quantities, and everything this entails about the ways quantum mechanical systems behave, are all woven into the structure of these spaces, embodied in the relations among the mathematical objects which represent them.[4] This means that understanding what a system is like according to quantum mechanics is inseparable from familiarity with the internal structure of those spaces. Know your way around Hilbert space, and become familiar with the dynamical laws that describe the paths that vectors travel through it, and you know everything there is to know, in the terms provided by the theory, about the systems that it describes.

By ‘know your way around’ Hilbert space, I mean something more than possess a description or a map of it; anybody who has a quantum mechanics textbook on their shelf has that. I mean know your way around it in the way you know your way around the city in which you live. This is a practical kind of knowledge that comes in degrees and it is best acquired by learning to solve problems of the form: How do I get from A to B? Can I get there without passing through C? And what is the shortest route? Graduate students in physics spend long years gaining familiarity with the nooks and crannies of Hilbert space, locating familiar landmarks, treading its beaten paths, learning where secret passages and dead ends lie, and developing a sense of the overall lay of the land. They learn how to navigate Hilbert space in the way a cab driver learns to navigate his city.

How much of this kind of knowledge is needed to approach the philosophical problems associated with the theory? In the beginning, not very much: just the most general facts about the geometry of the landscape (which is, in any case, unlike that of most cities, beautifully organized), and the paths that (the vectors representing the states of) systems travel through them. That is what will be introduced here: first a bit of easy math, and then, in a nutshell, the theory.

We can try to restore logical consistency by giving up the dynamical rule for contexts of type 2 (or, what amounts to the same thing, by denying that there are any such contexts), but then we have the problem of consistency with experience. For it was no mere blunder that that rule was included in the theory; we know what a system looks like when it is in an eigenstate of a given observable, and we know from looking that the measuring apparatus after measurement is in an eigenstate of the pointer observable. And so we know from the outset that if a theory tells us something else about the post-measurement states of measuring apparatuses, whatever that something else is, it is wrong.

That, in a nutshell, is the Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics; any interpretation of the theory, any detailed story about what the world is like according to quantum mechanics, and in particular those bits of the world in which measurements are going on, has to grapple with it.

Loose Ends

Mixed states are weighted sums of pure states, and they can be used to represent the states of ensembles whose components are in different pure states, or states of individual systems about which we have only partial knowledge. In the first case, the weight attached to a given pure state reflects the size of the component of the ensemble which is in that state (and hence the objective probability that an arbitrary member of the ensemble is); in the second case, they reflect the epistemic probability that the system in question to which the state is assigned is in that state.

If we don't want to lose the distinction between pure and mixed states, we need a way of representing the weighted sum of a set of pure states (equivalently, of the probability functions associated with them) that is different from adding the (suitably weighted) vectors that represent them, and that means that we need either an alternative way of representing mixed states, or a uniform way of representing both pure and mixed states that preserves the distinction between them. There is a kind of operator in Hilbert spaces, called a density operator, that serves well in the latter capacity, and it turns out not to be hard to restate everything that has been said about state vectors in terms of density operators. So, even though it is common to speak as though pure states are represented by vectors, the official rule is that states – pure and mixed, alike - are represented in quantum mechanics by density operators.
Although mixed states can, as I said, be used to represent our ignorance of the states of systems that are actually in one or another pure state, and although this has seemed to many to be an adequate way of interpreting mixtures in classical contexts, there are serious obstacles to applying it generally to quantum mechanical mixtures. These are left for detailed discussion in the other entries on quantum mechanics in the Encyclopedia.

Everything that has been said about observables, strictly speaking, applies only to the case in which the values of the observable form a discrete set; the mathematical niceties that are needed to generalize it to the case of continuous observables are complicated, and raise problems of a more technical nature. These, too, are best left for detailed discussion.

This should be all the initial preparation one needs to approach the philosophical discussion of quantum mechanics, but it is only a first step. The more one learns about the relationships among and between vectors and operators in Hilbert space, about how the spaces of simple systems relate to those of complex ones, and about the equation which describes how state-vectors move through the space, the better will be one's appreciation of both the nature and the difficulty of the problems associated with the theory. The funny backwards thing about quantum mechanics, the thing that makes it endlessly absorbing to a philosopher, is that the more one learns, the harder the problems get.

Bibliography
Albert, D., 1992, Quantum Mechanics and Experience, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Halmos, P., 1957, Introduction to Hilbert Space, 2nd edition, Providence: AMS Chelsea Publishing
Other Internet Resources
Preskill, J., 1998, Quantum Computation (Lecture Notes for Physics 219, California Institute of Technology)

A Quick Quantum History

History topic: A history of Quantum Mechanics
It is hard to realise that the electron was only discovered a little over 100 years ago in 1897. That it was not expected is illustrated by a remark made by J J Thomson, the discoverer of the electron. He said

I was told long afterwards by a distinguished physicist who had been present at my lecture that he thought I had been pulling their leg.

The neutron was not discovered until 1932 so it is against this background that we trace the beginnings of quantum theory back to 1859.

In 1859 Gustav Kirchhoff proved a theorem about blackbody radiation. A blackbody is an object that absorbs all the energy that falls upon it and, because it reflects no light, it would appear black to an observer. A blackbody is also a perfect emitter and Kirchhoff proved that the energy emitted E depends only on the temperature T and the frequency v of the emitted energy, i.e.

E = J(T,v).

He challenged physicists to find the function J.

In 1879 Josef Stefan proposed, on experimental grounds, that the total energy emitted by a hot body was proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. In the generality stated by Stefan this is false. The same conclusion was reached in 1884 by Ludwig Boltzmann for blackbody radiation, this time from theoretical considerations using thermodynamics and Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. The result, now known as the Stefan-Boltzmann law, does not fully answer Kirchhoff's challenge since it does not answer the question for specific wavelengths.

In 1896 Wilhelm Wien proposed a solution to the Kirchhoff challenge. However although his solution matches experimental observations closely for small values of the wavelength, it was shown to break down in the far infrared by Rubens and Kurlbaum.

Kirchhoff, who had been at Heidelberg, moved to Berlin. Boltzmann was offered his chair in Heidelberg but turned it down. The chair was then offered to Hertz who also declined the offer, so it was offered again, this time to Planck and he accepted.

Rubens visited Planck in October 1900 and explained his results to him. Within a few hours of Rubens leaving Planck's house Planck had guessed the correct formula for Kirchhoff's J function. This guess fitted experimental evidence at all wavelengths very well but Planck was not satisfied with this and tried to give a theoretical derivation of the formula. To do this he made the unprecedented step of assuming that the total energy is made up of indistinguishable energy elements - quanta of energy. He wrote

Experience will prove whether this hypothesis is realised in nature

Planck himself gave credit to Boltzmann for his statistical method but Planck's approach was fundamentally different. However theory had now deviated from experiment and was based on a hypothesis with no experimental basis. Planck won the 1918 Nobel Prize for Physics for this work.

In 1901 Ricci and Levi-Civita published Absolute differential calculus. It had been Christoffel's discovery of 'covariant differentiation' in 1869 which let Ricci extend the theory of tensor analysis to Riemannian space of n dimensions. The Ricci and Levi-Civita definitions were thought to give the most general formulation of a tensor. This work was not done with quantum theory in mind but, as so often happens, the mathematics necessary to embody a physical theory had appeared at precisely the right moment.

In 1905 Einstein examined the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect is the release of electrons from certain metals or semiconductors by the action of light. The electromagnetic theory of light gives results at odds with experimental evidence. Einstein proposed a quantum theory of light to solve the difficulty and then he realised that Planck's theory made implicit use of the light quantum hypothesis. By 1906 Einstein had correctly guessed that energy changes occur in a quantum material oscillator in changes in jumps which are multiples of v where is Planck's reduced constant and v is the frequency. Einstein received the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics, in 1922, for this work on the photoelectric effect.

In 1913 Niels Bohr wrote a revolutionary paper on the hydrogen atom. He discovered the major laws of the spectral lines. This work earned Bohr the 1922 Nobel Prize for Physics. Arthur Compton derived relativistic kinematics for the scattering of a photon (a light quantum) off an electron at rest in 1923.

However there were concepts in the new quantum theory which gave major worries to many leading physicists. Einstein, in particular, worried about the element of 'chance' which had entered physics. In fact Rutherford had introduced spontaneous effect when discussing radio-active decay in 1900. In 1924 Einstein wrote:-

There are therefore now two theories of light, both indispensable, and - as one must admit today despite twenty years of tremendous effort on the part of theoretical physicists - without any logical connection.

In the same year, 1924, Bohr, Kramers and Slater made important theoretical proposals regarding the interaction of light and matter which rejected the photon. Although the proposals were the wrong way forward they stimulated important experimental work. Bohr addressed certain paradoxes in his work.

(i) How can energy be conserved when some energy changes are continuous and some are discontinuous, i.e. change by quantum amounts.(ii) How does the electron know when to emit radiation.

Einstein had been puzzled by paradox (ii) and Pauli quickly told Bohr that he did not believe his theory. Further experimental work soon ended any resistance to belief in the electron. Other ways had to be found to resolve the paradoxes.

Up to this stage quantum theory was set up in Euclidean space and used Cartesian tensors of linear and angular momentum. However quantum theory was about to enter a new era.
The year 1924 saw the publication of another fundamental paper. It was written by Satyendra Nath Bose and rejected by a referee for publication. Bose then sent the manuscript to Einstein who immediately saw the importance of Bose's work and arranged for its publication. Bose proposed different states for the photon. He also proposed that there is no conservation of the number of photons. Instead of statistical independence of particles, Bose put particles into cells and talked about statistical independence of cells. Time has shown that Bose was right on all these points.

Work was going on at almost the same time as Bose's which was also of fundamental importance. The doctoral thesis of Louis de Broglie was presented which extended the particle-wave duality for light to all particles, in particular to electrons. Schrödinger in 1926 published a paper giving his equation for the hydrogen atom and heralded the birth of wave mechanics. Schrödinger introduced operators associated with each dynamical variable.

The year 1926 saw the complete solution of the derivation of Planck's law after 26 years. It was solved by Dirac. Also in 1926 Born abandoned the causality of traditional physics. Speaking of collisions Born wrote

One does not get an answer to the question, What is the state after collision? but only to the question, How probable is a given effect of the collision? From the standpoint of our quantum mechanics, there is no quantity which causally fixes the effect of a collision in an individual event.

Heisenberg wrote his first paper on quantum mechanics in 1925 and 2 years later stated his uncertainty principle. It states that the process of measuring the position x of a particle disturbs the particle's momentum p, so that

Dx Dp = h/2π

where Dx is the uncertainty of the position and Dp is the uncertainty of the momentum. Here h is Planck's constant and is usually called the 'reduced Planck's constant'. Heisenberg states that
the nonvalidity of rigorous causality is necessary and not just consistently possible.
Heisenberg's work used matrix methods made possible by the work of Cayley on matrices 50 years earlier. In fact 'rival' matrix mechanics deriving from Heisenberg's work and wave mechanics resulting from Schrödinger's work now entered the arena. These were not properly shown to be equivalent until the necessary mathematics was developed by Riesz about 25 years later.

Also in 1927 Bohr stated that space-time coordinates and causality are complementary. Pauli realised that spin, one of the states proposed by Bose, corresponded to a new kind of tensor, one not covered by the Ricci and Levi-Civita work of 1901. However the mathematics of this had been anticipated by Eli Cartan who introduced a 'spinor' as part of a much more general investigation in 1913.

Dirac, in 1928, gave the first solution of the problem of expressing quantum theory in a form which was invariant under the Lorentz group of transformations of special relativity. He expressed d'Alembert's wave equation in terms of operator algebra.

The uncertainty principle was not accepted by everyone. Its most outspoken opponent was Einstein. He devised a challenge to Niels Bohr which he made at a conference which they both attended in 1930. Einstein suggested a box filled with radiation with a clock fitted in one side. The clock is designed to open a shutter and allow one photon to escape. Weigh the box again some time later and the photon energy and its time of escape can both be measured with arbitrary accuracy. Of course this is not meant to be an actual experiment, only a 'thought experiment'.

Niels Bohr is reported to have spent an unhappy evening, and Einstein a happy one, after this challenge by Einstein to the uncertainty principle. However Niels Bohr had the final triumph, for the next day he had the solution. The mass is measured by hanging a compensation weight under the box. This is turn imparts a momentum to the box and there is an error in measuring the position. Time, according to relativity, is not absolute and the error in the position of the box translates into an error in measuring the time.

Although Einstein was never happy with the uncertainty principle, he was forced, rather grudgingly, to accept it after Bohr's explanation.

In 1932 von Neumann put quantum theory on a firm theoretical basis. Some of the earlier work had lacked mathematical rigour, but von Neumann put the whole theory into the setting of operator algebra.

Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson

Another Quantum Moment

WASHINGTON, D.C.CRIME STUDY
Quantum physicist John Hagelin, Ph.D. refers to a study that was done in Washington, D.C., in June-July of 1993.This study presents the final results of a two-month prospective experiment to reduce violent crime in Washington, D.C. On the basis of previous research it was hypothesized that the level of violent crime in the District of Columbia would drop significantly with the creation of a large group of participants in the Transcendental Meditation® and TM-Sidhi® programs to increase coherence and reduce stress in the District.The graph above gives an idea of the results that were achieved.
For a more extensive summary of this study, please visit The Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy at Maharishi University of Management.

A Quantum Moment

Firstly, I have to state - in case no one has actually said it out loud - that Quantum Theory has effectively solved the Mind-Body Problem. In fact, Quantum Mechanics shows us that the Mind-Body Problem was never really a problem at all.

Monsieur Descartes, you are a thinking thing. And that is all you are.

My previous post regarding abundance was taken tongue-in-cheek by those who chose to comment. Some gently chided me about my New Age approach to a serious financial situation, others out-and-out accused me of having lost my freaking mind. Regardless I still believe that I manifested a miracle; what's more, it's not the first time.

Like it or not, we are all chemically dependant. Neurophysiology shows us that each cell in our bodies - cells that are constantly being duplicated and shed - has receptors for small protein chains called peptides that are manufactured and dumped into our systems via the hypothalamus and limbic system. The peptides, once locked into the cell's receptors, change the electrochemistry of the entire cell. Peptides are created and disseminated in response to emotions. And emotions are the realization of thought. Once dependent on the chemistry of the peptide, the cells replicate with more receptors for the peptide that it craves and less receptors for nutrients, vitamins, and other amino acids and protein chains. This is the same mechanism that allows for addicition to externally applied substances like nicotine.

This is why my friend the Drama Queen finds herself in the same violent relationship no matter who the new partner is. This is why my mother hates every haircut she gets. This is why my friend continues his extra-marital "socializing" despite the fact that he nearly lost his family last year. They need it. They are chemically dependent on the feelings. And because they need it, they attract it.

The feelings are the manifestation of the thoughts that may not be presented to the consciousness in their entirety. These emotions not only affect the energy fields that are our bodies, but the continuum of energy all around us. And consistency of emotion - as we have seen with cell replication in our own bodies - manifests in consistency of attraction.

My conscious choice to live in abundance is not a magic trick. It is the act of manifesting the law of attraction through thought. Each and every one of us does it every day. But doing it without thinking about it often perpetuates old or useless emotions that have nothing to do with the life I am creating in my mind (and thus in my world). Sometimes I forget the power of creation that exists, boundless, in my thoughts. Choosing to live in abundance was a reminder. Manifesting the energy charged with the emotions of having abundance attracts abundance to me. Simple, easy... and laws-of-physics true.

Creating a life takes practice. I intend to perfect the art within the year.

Abundance is only the beginning!!!

Thank You, Friends

So, my small and well-loved (and still fairly new and exciting) circle of bloggers has been discussing music lately... reminder songs, MP3 players, earphone etiquette, etc. I've had my iPod at work for several months, hooked up to a mini set of speakers, but I rarely have the chance to listen as people are wandering in and out of my cubicle all day asking me stupid questions and acting like I've invited them in for coffee.

So, the first day of my long-awaited vacation arrived (today) to find me - where else?? - in the office finishing up MY work that didn't get finished yesterday because I was too busy doing my Supervisor's work. Since I'm going to be out for almost two weeks, I figured I better lock up my radio and other gear that I'm not going to take home... and lo! and behold! there's my little iPod looking lonely and forlorn behind my computer monitor. I put it in my pocket, locked up the speakers with my 800 Mhz radio, and brought it home.

Oh, I had forgotten!!!! The past several hours have been me, my earphones, and my iPod... just puttering around the house getting some chores done... but what an adventure!! Songs I haven't heard in years!!! Dancing naked in the kitchen because I can!! The seeming solitude of the earphones trasported me to a stage that I left as a young woman and haven't returned to since... dancing like there's no tomorrow! Singing at the top of my lungs!! And feeling so very young and alive.

It's only the first day, and already I feel more whole than I have since June.

Short Whining Session

20 years ago, I thought I had a pretty good handle on things. For example, choosing to get married again was a piece of cake because I had been there, done that, and knew so much better now. Oh, ha ha ha.

Now, 20 years later, I still don't know squat. The only difference is that I know I don't know squat.

So, I will continue to claim ignorance - especially since I seem to make the same silly mistakes over and over again - about all things but one: I know about being married. And I know, unequivocally, that I suck at it.

For example, it seems to me that being married requires a semblance of patience. Strike one.

I've noticed, too, that being married indicates a certain level of sexual understanding between the two parties. Strike two.

Perhaps most importantly, it has come to my attention that being married is easiest for those who actually like one another, or at least who like people in general. Yeah, Ump, I know. Thanks for the update.

You gotta give me credit for continuing to try, though. I really do try.

Gratitude

I've posted with a similar theme several times over the past few months: my financial situation is bleak, at best. And I've been hit with quite a few very expensive surprises. And now I have to expend time and energy to clear the negative information posted to public records by the City of Omaha, which continues to clear overgrown brush and accumulated litter on a corner lot that I own and place special liens on the property despite the fact that I have asked the City over and over again to notify me when the brush needs clearing so I can either take care of it or pay the City in advance. What that means is that I cannot even apply for credit right now.

Too much information, perhaps... but I am going somewhere with this, I swear.

As I mentioned, my eldest daughter has announced her planned wedding date and my middle daughter needs a dental implant. My husband's return from Hawaii necessitates re-registering three vehicles which I had been holding in "Planned Non-Operational" status. I just spent several thousands of dollars for a new furnace and my spousal unit's shipping of vehicles and household goods. I went overboard during the holidays because that's what I do.

On Wednesday, my husband called to tell me that the dental implant will cost $4000 - after insurance. I had to call my eldest to tell her that the $5000 I had promised her for reception room reservations before the 1st of February would not be forthcoming.

And then I cried all the way home.

I returned home that evening - by Divine Grace - to an empty house. While allowing the simple gratitude for that small but precious gift lift the fog of despair I had sunk into, I realized (again) that this is my life. And in Love and Gratitude, I decided to choose differently.

I choose abundance, I said aloud. I choose to always have more than enough.

That was Wednesday. Today is Saturday. In three days, I have deposited over $13,000 in unexpected windfalls into my savings account. Yes, really.

I will be writing my eldest the check for her reception deposit today. I will be paying the dentist for the implant on Tuesday. My husband was able to take care of all the outstanding Department of Motor Vehicles issues on Friday. And I'll be sending a check to the City of Omaha on Monday.

This, my friends, is the power of Love and Gratitude. This is the power of Divine I.

What will you choose?????

Children See...

Sometimes I forget. Sometimes, most people do.

So, this was a good reminder for me. I hope it will be an effective reminder for you as well.

Every moment counts.

"Love" Does Not Mean What You Think It Means

A Message from Archangel Michael

as received by HaloEyes, June 27, 1997

Oh courageous ones of the Earth, hear our call to freedom and flight.

Like a bird with wings outstretched in flight you fly. Ever higher in freedom. High enough to touch the sun. And, with each flap of the wings you draw courage and strength.

You are brave in your chosen path and you are dearly loved. There are no mistakes along your way - only opportunities to make a difference.

You come into the world through love yet see suffering and pain. "Why?" you ask do you have to live like this? And we join you in questioning this and we answer with love, "You don't."

You were never asked to suffer, dear ones. You need suffer no longer.

Call in the Force of Truth.

Call on the Force of Love.

Make changes in your environment.

If you are stifled, know you are not living in Truth. If you are in pain, know you are not living in Love and let go.

There is no force in the Universe more powerful than the love possessed in your body, mind, and soul. Use this power of love to break the chains that bind.

Call on the Sword of Truth and Love to cut through any chains.

Breathe in the Power of Love in the Universe.

Spread your wings and fly forward in courage and harmony.

The wind beneath your wings will never fail you.

A Message From Amber

(Just Amber, sorry)

It is my humble opinion that channelers have something very real to tell us. Is this a message from Michael the Archangel? I don't know. I do know that I've heard, seen, and read a lot of channelings, and there are some striking - and sobering - similarities. I note these traits also in conversations with my mother's cousin, who I am convinced speaks directly to God.

So, having said that, I must advise that I firmly believe that "Love," translated literally, does not mean a strong feeling for something outside of oneself. I believe that "Love," translated literally (from the soul's dictionary to the dictionary of the consciousness) means "Divine I."

Think about it.

What do you think?

If you think I may just have the right idea, read that passage again. Now...

how do you feel?

Cell Phone Karma - I Believe!

After being inundated this week by abounding rudeness, I felt compelled to post this for the obvious non-believers out there:

Magic

I have one of these bad boys at work. I use it for everything from casework dilemmas to on-the-spot homicide decisions ("Oh, Magic 8 Ball, does my Supervisor really deserve to live another day??). Other people routinely stop by my cubicle to pay homage to the Magic 8 Ball and seek its wisdom and knowledge. Some stomp out looking like they will cry at any second. Others leave elated and will consistently refuse to explain the little squeal that emitted from their throat upon turning the Magic 8 Ball over to reveal its mysterious message from beyond.

In case you are wondering, I keep the services of the Magic 8 Ball free of charge. I feel it's more karmically beneficial that way. Don't think for a second that I wouldn't capitalize on the Magic 8 Ball like a big ol' gray dog tick on a big ol' white sheepdog if I weren't terrified of Divine judgment in the matter.

But I digress.

Have a go or two at the Magic 8 Ball. Do you find you are asking questions you already know the answers to? Are you asking the same question over again when the Magic 8 Ball doesn't respond with the "right" answer? Do you feel strangely melancholy when the Magic 8 Ball supplies you with an answer that you long suspected was true but were afraid to acknowledge?

Why is that, do you think?

The moral of the story: you ARE the Magic 8 Ball. Trust your gut.

I, Too, Have a Dream

A friend commented in his blog this morning that many communities have forgotten the message for which this day was created as a reminder. Eloquent in his simplicity, he courageously stated that the black community as a whole seems to have lost the message. And though he - and I - are aware of the dangers of generalizing, I have to agree.

I'll go a bit further, though, and state that most of us have lost the message. And I have to give credit where it is due, because I don't believe that Dr. King was a stellar human being, and I don't believe that he was any more special than the rest of us (in fact, I believe the opposite, as the majority of us would be aghast at the mere thought of cheating to obtain an honor), and I don't believe that his message was his alone. I will still render kudos to the dead Doctor for being brave enough to stand up and say it, even though he knew full well he'd be martyred. Hell, maybe that was his penance.

And my friend who blogged earlier today about lost messages in certain communities hit the nail on the head without even realizing the fundamental glory of his words, because what Dr. King's famous speech was about was human pride. Dr. King inspired a Nation - not just a People - to rise above poverty, oppression, legal discrimination, and violence. Dr. King asked us - Americans all - to be better than we were. Dr. King reminded us not to crush the little ones as we stepped up to greatness. Dr. King asked us - ALL OF US - to forgive ignorance and relieve others of their burden of prejudice. And on that day, there was a great shift in consciousness that continues to reverberate today.

It was noble work then and is noble work now. I am blessed to know it.

Copy and Paste...

...into your web page, blog, MySpace page, whatever. Use it as a header for your own campaign, if you wish. Use it as a link from your page to MY donation page, if you dare!! :-) I think this is a great graphic!!!

http://www.the3day.org/sandiego07/trulydazzling

Why "The Last Samurai" Made Me Cry

There is now no art in killing. Anyone can do it.

T Minus Nineteen

In nineteen days I'm going to begin a two-week (well, almost two week) vacation. It will be the longest period of time I've been away from work since I started this job over seven years ago. I've had several surgeries and didn't take that much time off for any of them.

A year ago, a thirteen day hiatus would never have crossed my mind. A year before that, I had to force myself to take a couple of days all at once.

Yes, I love my job. I really do.

More importantly is the fact that every day I don't show up, the work still does. And it seems to multiply itself exponentially each day I am absent. Any relaxation and improved outlook achieved during a vacation of any significant duration is instantly nullified by the first five minutes back in the office. So, in general, people who take more than one work week off are doing something truly fabulous, like traveling to New Zealand or adopting a Russian orphan. Anything else just isn't worth the crash.

No, I'm not planning to do anything truly fabulous with my thirteen days. I hope to have the house to myself for the majority of those days (kids at school, male spousal unit at work) and hope further to write badly, sing loudly, dance maniacally, and wear clothing only when absolutely necessary. I have also committed to forcing myself to completely ignore my work e-mail and voicemail for the entire duration of the vacation. I'm going to ride my motorcycle and swim at the gym. I'm going to get a spa pedicure. I'm going to shop at Neiman-Marcus like I belong there and I'm going to eat dessert like I can afford a new wardrobe. I'm going to forget how to be Senior Officer H******* and remember how to be me.

Worth the crash? I'm sure of it.

T minus 19... and counting.

Solitude, Part Two

Today I tried locking the door.

This is not as easy as it sounds, because it means I have to use a bathroom in a different part of the house. My bathroom is attached to my bedroom and doesn't have a separate door. In order to lock the door for privacy in my bathroom, I have to lock the door to the bedroom, eliminating access to that room entirely.

So, after sitting in traffic for over an hour on my way home from work, I went straight to the bathroom on the other side of the house, locked the door, and - believing these measures stringent enough to ensure my privacy and an uninterrupted bodily function sortie - went about my business.

Beyond the door, I could hear the phone ringing. Two seconds later, my daughter was knocking on the door.

"Yes??"

"Mom, Mr. Frank is on the phone."

"Okay, and....?"

"Well, do you want to talk to him??"

"Honey, I'm in the bathroom! Can I just call him back?"

I could hear muttering, then, "Yes, he says you can call him back, but you know I talk to my friends all the time when I'm on the toilet."

As she walked away, I once again settled in to git 'er done. Less than a minute later, footsteps approached. My husband.

He stood outside the door for a couple of seconds. Then he tried the knob. Then he knocked.

"Yes??"

"Are you all right??"

"Of course. I'm just using the bathroom."

"Oh. Well, do you want me to go get her (my younger daughter) at daycare?"

"No, I'll get her when I'm finished."

"OK. Are you sure you're okay? Why are you locked in there?"

"I'm fine. I'll be out in a minute." Why even bother to answer that last question????

At that point, I didn't even have to go any more. It was time to start dinner anyway.

You may have surmised - as I have!! - that locking the door isn't going to make much of a difference for me. Thanks to all for the suggestions, though!!

Sweet Unknown Solitude

This may be the ultimate in selfishness, but I'm wondering if a few minutes alone in the bathroom is an unreasonable expectation? Perhaps my sense of what is appropriate and what isn't in a family has somehow deviated during the time my male spousal unit was living across the ocean, but since he's been back I've had ZERO time to myself.

Before I changed jobs back in May, I worked what's called a 9/80 schedule, which means I worked 8 nine hour days, 1 eight hour day, and had 1 day off every two weeks. Those two days per month were my sanity: I used those precious hours alone to well, be alone. I could sing, dance, finish projects, write, read, talk on the phone, get my toenails done, etc. Since May, I've been a geographically single parent working a traditional five-days-per-week schedule with an hour's commute each way. Needless to say, I haven't had a moment to myself since then with the exception of commute time, shower/bathroom time, and (obviously) sleep time. Believe it or not, those moments of solitude were enough to keep me sane.

But trust me when I say that I didn't know the meaning of "up in my grille" until my husband came home. Seems like he's afraid I'm going to up and disappear if I go into another room, because he follows me wherever I go. I'm not exaggerating. I haven't pooped, showered, applied makeup or deodorant, dressed, or changed a friggin' tampon by myself since December 22.

I had a hysterical laughing fit (the alternative was a complete mental breakdown and I just can't afford that right now) the other day when he came in while I was trying to take a dump and all the kids and dogs followed him in. There I am, shooting butt nuggets, and the entire household is discussing various aspects of the situation while two Dobermans try to shove their snouts between my legs. What's not funny about that, y'all?? Seriously!!

I've already run out of hints. I'm pretty close to running out of nice ways to say it. I have no idea what I'll do next. I shed tears of joy this evening when I was miraculously allowed to do the grocery shopping sans entourage.

I think I'll go over my boss' head and beg for my 9/80 schedule back. I mean beg.

A Taste of Roses

Being a non-smoker would be a whole lot cooler if 30 pounds liberally padded onto my girlier areas wasn't one of the side effects.

I've been doing very well, sticking to my fairly good pre-quitting eating habits and my unelaborate but effective workout routine. Regardless, I've added about 9 pounds since Thanksgiving, and know from previous experience that my body as a non-smoker is completely different than my body as a smoker. Naturally, the more zaftig me is healthier... but I find it difficult to be gentle with myself when it's time to get dressed in the morning.

To top it all off, I've come across this:



Creme de Rose. Oh, it is to die for. Yes, it is ice cream made with extract of roses. One pint is comparable in cost to one pack of cigarettes.

Coincidence? Or conspiracy??? You decide. I'm eating.

You Are...

I Run to the Sound of the Guns

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath--a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Everyone has been given a gift in life. Some people have a gift for science and some have a flair for art. And warriors have been given the gift of aggression. They would no more misuse this gift than a doctor would misuse his healing arts, but they yearn for the opportunity to use their gift to help others. These people, the ones who have been blessed with the gift of aggression and a love for others, are our sheepdogs. These are our warriors.

Let me expand on this old soldier’s excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids’ schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid’s school. Our children are dozens of times more likely to be killed, and thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured, by school violence than by school fires, but the sheep’s only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their children is just too hard, so they choose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.”

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001, when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, “Thank God I wasn’t on one of those planes.” The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, “Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.” When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.While there is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, he does have one real advantage.

Only one.

He is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

--From On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and Peace by Lt. Col. David A. Grossman, US Army, retired.

No More MotoBarbie!

Now I'm StratoBarbie!!
This is my New Year's rebellion... a friend gave me a great deal, as he was trying to move the 2006 models out of his shop... just under 1900cc, the windshield and backrest detach in seconds...
Oh yeah, got a new head o' hair to complement my brand new year....