LOVE POEM

love
the sheperd said was real to sweell

love the real inside the shell

three in love can be the one for nine
l the name of your inner heart

o the sound i made you come

v the shape of your bum

e and that’s the word we’re thinking of!

A Squeak from The Qwork and A Speech In A Ordinarytoriartion OFfal A Valued Voice

Of the four fundamental forces–the others besides the strong nuclear force are electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force (responsible for the decay of radioactive nuclei), and gravitation–the strong force was by far the most poorly understood in the early 1970s. It had been suggested in 1964 by Caltech physicist Murray Gell-Mann that protons and neutrons contain more elementary objects, which he called quarks.


Wilczek–theorized that quarks actually become bound more tightly the farther they get from each other.

This discovery has been known for 31 years as "asymptotic freedom," and is often described by physics professors to their students with the analogy of a rubber band increasing in tightness as it is pulled apart. Asymptotic freedom established quantum chromodynamics (QCD) as the correct theory of the strong force, one of the four fundamental forces of nature.'

Yet isolated quarks are never seen, indicating that the quarks are permanently bound together by powerful nuclear forces. Meanwhile, studies of high-energy collisions between electrons and protons performed at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) had probed the internal structure of the proton, and Caltech's Richard Feynman had suggested in 1969 that the results of these experiments could be explained if quarks inside a proton are nearly free, not subject to any force. Feynman's suggestion, together with the observation that quarks are unable to escape from nuclear particles, posed a deep puzzle: how could nuclear forces be both strong enough to account for the permanent confinement of quarks and weak enough to account for the SLAC experiments?



David Politzer, Asymptotic Freedom, and Strong InteractionPhys. Rev. D 10 (1974): Sidney Coleman, R. Jackiw, and H. D. Politzer - Spontaneous symmetry breaking in...

Quantum Phase Lock Thinking For Out of The War PArameters

Peter Shor’s demonstration [1] in the mid 1990s of an efficient algorithm for factorizing prime numbers has triggered an immense interest in various aspects of quantum computation. Researchers have proposed several ways to implement quantum computers, ranging from systems that store information in trapped atoms [2] or ions [3] to computers based on condensed matter systems such as Josephson junctions [4] and quantum dots [5]. Such computers would rely on the phenomena of quantum coherence and quantum entanglement among a set of such “qubits” (Fig. 1). Despite these efforts, quantum computers of any useful size still seem far beyond the scope of present day technology, mainly because of the difficulties in maintaining the necessary coherence of all the qubits. Achievable error probabilities for qubit manipulations are still far above the value of ~10-4 required for efficient fault-tolerant quantum computation [6]. A key challenge for quantum computation research is to achieve this precision.

One approach towards this goal is to use quantum geometric phases (that is, the effects of moving a set of quantum parameters around a curved parameter space) [7, 8, 9] to implement quantum gates that manipulate states of physical qubits. Such gates would be the quantum computing equivalent of the logic gates found on today’s microchips. The idea of using geometric phase is known as holonomic or geometric quantum computation, and has become one of the key approaches to achieving quantum computation that is resilient against errors. In 1999, Zanardi and Rasetti [10] laid the theoretical foundations of holonomic quantum computation by showing that any quantum circuit can be generated by using suitable Hamiltonians that depend on experimentally controllable parameters, such as those related to the manipulation of a bosonic mode in a quantum optical system [11]. At the same time, Jones et al. [12] demonstrated experimentally a quantum gate based on geometric phase that was able to entangle a pair of nuclear spins in a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) setup. This experiment provided the first explicit example of geometric quantum computation and helped to boost the interest in this field.
Holonomic quantum computation

2018 A.D. Year sixteen of the New Era.

With live mining concluding in 2018, leaving only a decade for further recovery, what is on display on this table is the perfect flowering both of a rare commodity and a market opportunity—like a Chateau Petrus entering its five-year period of perfect drinking, or buying a Monet when he was in his 20s.

You see the other half of this supply/demand miracle most clearly in the depth of color in the 2007 tender. All but 15 of the 45 stones are deep or vivid—and a few of the larger fancy intense pinks may soon be recut to ratchet the grade up. The ratio would be 35:45 were it not for the red profusion. "No red diamond," as Zion reminds me, "has ever gotten better than a fancy grade."

Lot 28, an AGT certed 0.77 carat fancy red I1 hexagon, is the stone that, for me, best sums up the supply half of the 2007 tender. GIA, which also graded the stone, called it a fancy deep pink. While I certainly see that depth, the pinkness escapes me. It's one of those love at first sight stones, its color, shape, and intensity combining for rarity beyond rarity, and I feel almost resentful at the downgrade. Pearce, while leaning toward the AGT grade, explains the complexity of calling color on such rarity—a unique lesson on how a fancy color's graining, banding, and balance of saturation and hue play into the method by which a grader, banking on his personal experience and his lab's inventory of similar stones, comes to define the ineffable in a few generic words.
1990: Oregon Desert Sri Yantra (Fig. 3-6)
http://goldenmean.info/rain/
In the summer of 1990, a group of friends, one of my sons and I went to a remote alkali lake bed in the high desert of southeast Oregon to inscribe a large Sri Yantra in the earth. It was to contain a central point large enough to live in. The site was chosen because of its beauty and remoteness. Almost no one, except a few ranchers, ever went there. Inscribing lines in the alkali surface would not disturb any vegetation and it would be a transitory event, eventually disappearing back into the surface through the natural action of wind and the occasional water that floods the lake bed every few years.
Water follows magnetism - because the water itself is highly paramagnetic. This means simply that most water contains enough trace elements to be highly piezoelectric - which is responsive to electrical fields. (Piezoelectricity refers to the ability to couple or lock together simple waves of mechanical pressure ('stricture' / or compression) - often 'sonic or phonon' - with an electrical voltage and the current that induces. Piezoelectricity in slinkly type structures like quartz and DNA are natures way of connecting SHORT WAVES WITH LONG WAVES).

It is important to begin to get the idea - that to steer water around intelligently in bioregions - you must understand how to steer electro-magnetic fields around with symmetry. This is because the two are directly coupled in their flow.

Essentially put - water IS the magnetic blood of Earth. And like the blood in your body, both the magnetism and the water in the Earth have to find symmetry or they die. Symmetry is required because it is the only way inertia can be distributed without destuctive interference. Without symmetry (pretty rose like unpacking patterns) the inertia in the flowing water and magnetism would be canceled out or die.

So both water and magnetism follow symmetry to avoid the death of destructive interference. Eventually you will get the idea that water molecules are not stupid- they will not fall into gardens or farms - where there is not enough magnetic symmetry - because they know that would kill them.
It is Feminine to Create Space -