Slashdot Mirror
Ultra-Dense Optical Storage on One Photon
Andreaskem submitted this story about researchers being able to encode an image into a photon and to later retrieve it intact. From the article: "It's analogous to the difference between snapping a picture with a single pixel and doing it with a camera — this is like a 6-megapixel camera... You can have a tremendous amount of information in a pulse of light, but normally if you try to buffer it, you can lose much of that information... We're showing it's possible to pull out an enormous amount of information with an extremely high signal-to-noise ratio even with very low light levels."
The Image is NOT encoded into one photon, at least not in a way that can be extracted again. Each individual photon is in a superposition of having gone all the possible paths and the set of those possible paths is the information to be extracted but when measured each photon will only reveal a small amount of information so it is only in the aggregate (by measuring lots of photons) that the initial image can be reproduced. At least this is what the article sounds like it is saying it wasn't very clear.
In fact it is probably best to think of this without quantum mechanics at all. What they did is pretty much like figuring out the shape of an object by shooting BBs at it and looking at which ones make it past the object.
The part that is supposedly new and interesting is the way they collected the photons at the other end. It didn't seem very clear on this but apparently by catching many of the photons in their device at one time it made it much easier to decode the image in the light.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
If you treat a photon as a symbol, then the only limit to the amount of information that it can store is the signal to noise ratio. Ah, there's the rub.
r em
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon-Hartley_theo
I'm thinking they are stretching the truth here a little. Using just ONE photon to produce an image? I think not. Looks like a fancy double slit experiment to me.
Does this mean I can now store my photos in a nice easy to carry cartridge or caesium gas? This is a great improvment on these clunky microSD cards I use now.
Both the poster's summary and the news release are incorrect. You cannot encode more information than quantum numbers on any quanta, it is not possible. I believe that another poster has a plausible explanation for what is actually going on: that they measure many photons and reconstruct the information by knowing the possible paths which do the encoding of information.
"RIAA filed a suit against University of Rochester and all of its students for "Helping those damn, dirty pirates infringe on our copyrights!!"
They turned Britney Spears' "Oops I Did It Again" into a giant single number, and imprinted that number on the photon, thus making an illegal photon.
... they are stacking the data and using light to store it in serial instead of the traditional parrallel? I mean, 10 photons at a time stacking up inside a buffer carries just as much data as 10 photons simultaniuosly, doesnt it?
Quantum computing is very fun and mind-bending, and would facilitate lots of computation that we currently think of as "impossible." Being able to do encodings such as those (mis)described in the article would be one consequence.
This reminds me of a short story (by Clarke or Asimov, I think). It's the far future, and increasingly dense data storage (the terms "notched quark" and "nudged quark" are used) means all of Humanities knowledge fits into a single file cabinet-sized drawer. All the rest of the world-wide internet-like system consists of indexes, indexes of indexes, and indexes of indexes of indexes of... well, you get the idea. One day a worker comes across an error, and forwards it to his boss. It keeps getting sent up the chain of command until a Master Troubleshooter realizes that to fix it, he needs to refer to the original datastore location. He enters the command to find the physical location of the datastore... and gets the same error.
:-)
Uhh-oh.
Any photon has a frequency (wavelength, energy, whatever). The frequency is not quantified and can assume infinite values. By generating a photon with the correct energy, I have encoded, in theory at least, a vast amount of information. Of course your ability to encode and decode very much information is limited by the available technology and the noise environment. :-)
Can I use my single-pixel camera to make a one photon image?
Howell's home page
Boyd's home page
The article isn't a good match with any project listed there.
The idea of storage by slowing something down goes back to a comically ancient technology, which was converting bits to sound waves and sending them through tubes of mercury to be detected electrically milliseconds later.
> RIAA filed a suit against University of Rochester and all of its students for "Helping those damn, dirty pirates infringe on our copyrights!!".
And the screenwriters for Planet of the Apes are now suing the RIAA in turn...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Bah, it was fair use of both the song and the photon.
Modular Redundancy--Because 4 out of 5 Nodes agree
You could store as delayed and compressed wave signals... an incredibly elaborate matrix of data. It would be interesting to use something other than a physical mask to create the interference in the wave... say another set of photons in the form of a laser... would this be a form of holographic storage?
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Shining light through a mask and then "looping" the initial light burst via a series of mirrors allows you to do "optical buffering", who'd thunk it?
USPTO to grant patent on mirror.
Film at 11 stars Russel Crowe in a biopic about the genius who invented light buffering.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/1 9/1646212
... where the storage device travelled at a reduced speed of light.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Actually, you can travel a light year in significantly less than a year, depending on how one defines "light year" and "year". For example, if you accelerated at 1 g towards Alpha Centauri (fun fact: 1 g is just over 1 ly/yr^2!), you would reach Alpha Centauri in about 2.25 years. Of course, looking back the original distance of 4 light years would now be shortened (thanks to that fella Lorentz). Bonus fact: as you pass Alpha Centauri, you will be covering 5 light years (as measured in the Earth frame of reference) per year (as measured in your own frame of reference)!
See, Einstein wasn't so mean after all.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The setup looks like the kind of setup you'd use for holography. Split the beam, part goes to the object, part gets used as a reference.
Anyways, the researcher is delaying the arrival of the photon by 100 nanoseconds (my guess is that this is the time it takes to traverse the cesium gas chamber as compared to it not being there. He is not storing the photon in any reasonable definition of the word storage. It merely gets delayed by its passage through the gas.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Here is exhibit A, which you will note, is a single photon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon-Hartley_theor em
... and so forth. With commercial lab equipment, it is possible to create and measure frequencies with an accuracy of one part in ten to the thirteenth. So, our photon could easily have more than ten to the tenth states. I leave the arithmetic to you as an exercise.
The number of bits I can encode on a symbol depends on how many states that symbol can assume. If the symbol can assume two states, I can encode a single bit. If the symbol can assume four states, I can encode two bits in this single symbol. If the symbol can assume eight states, I can encode three bits
I suspect the original press release and the articles on Science Daily and PhysOrg are FUBAR. I think an article in the Washington Post is probably more accurate. Unfortunately the Phys. Rev. Letter web site doesn't seem to have the actual paper publicly available yet.
... it would seem that it might be possible to improve a lot on the image resolution of the best optical telescopes.
From the admittedly simplified diagram of the components, it would not seem to be out of the question for this notion to be included in future orbiting camera platforms, whether for scientific or spying purposes. Imagine if the Mars Orbiter had this sort of image resolution capability, or even the Hubble Space Telescope (or its replacement).
If this information-encoding method were true (single photon carrying megabytes of information), then there would a profound implication:
Because a computer of a given mass could then theoretically be used to completely store information of a physical structure of real objects (position and properties of each atom), these systems could then completely simulate/emulate these real objects of a mass larger than the mass of the computer, even if not in realtime. That enables a large variety of applications IF it is additionally possible to acceptably scan the data of the makeup of real objects. You could theoretically have a simulation of our physical universe, without having to use the mass of the universe to make that simulation!
Major roadblocks would be the depredation of data on the light over time, and requirements of isolating the data - if the properly shielded case for a 'light hard drive' needed to be heavy enough, or the energy needed to maintain the data were enough, it could make production impractical, even if it could do what we wanted.
Very interesting research, if the data 'storage' ends up being what they think it is.
Ryan Fenton
I think the business of encoding an image on a single photon is a confabulation by the author of the press release.
Yeah. This is just the two-slit experiment with a material with a slow propagation velocity in the optical path. It's not new physics.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=21764 2&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=176721 38
But well 0 points...
This means, we can in theory now communicate faster than light.
Quantum Communications PDF
Quantum Nuclear Teleportation
This is actually bigger news than it seems. It could influence information technology, and have the potential to create strange new weapons. Let's hope we have enough sense to use it for communications and computing.
Did they store the image on ONE photon, or did they store it on MULTIPLE photons. Also, they didn't define what they meant by 'image'. Did they mean 'image' in a sense like storing a photograph of yourself, or did they mean 'image' in the sense that it is an energy level that only codes for ONE PIXEL in an image? From the "UR" sample images, it appears that they were able to only code each individual photo so that it functions as a pixel, rather than an image. Remember, there is a difference between pixels and images.
Sometimes, I think that researchers and engineers get so excited about things that they forget what they are talking about and are so eager to proclaim their new 'discovery' to the world that they tend to over-exaggerate and/or forget what exactly they really did.
As blown out of proportion as their claim is, it is really cool that they were actually able to code photons as pixels.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
If it is possible to teleport a proton, and it's possible also to store information in a proton, it is possible to communicate information faster than light.
This means it's possible for us to create quantum computers which transfer information instantly, I'm not even sure we know what this means yet but discovering this is like discovering atomic technology in the 1930s.
If protons can be teleported due to non locality of the quantum, it changes everything. What we really have to consider is the fact that nuclear elements can be teleported to.
First Quantum Teleportation Experiments
What is basically says is that everything in the universe is connected, as if we are on a 2d river, and if you mess with something over here, it messes with something over there, as if there is no here or there, and no distance at all.
If there is no distance at all, that changes the world. Right now we have only managed to make it so there is no distance with photons, and maybe atoms, but just by doing this we allow for there to be no distance for communication. When there is no distance for communication it means we could communicate with aliens accross the universe using this method and actually recieve a response.
It also means we can communicate with each other instantly.
WE have quantumly teleported atoms
It's proven that we have teleported atoms. As we can see, we are on the edge of a breakthrough, which will either be very good or very bad for our species.
That is a very good point.
However, take into account that fact that light can be teleported too, through quantum entanglement. Combine this with quantum computers, and then you have something really scary.
Sometimes, I think that researchers and engineers get so excited about things that they forget what they are talking about and are so eager to proclaim their new 'discovery' to the world that they tend to over-exaggerate and/or forget what exactly they really did.
As blown out of proportion as their claim is, it is really cool that they were actually able to code photons as pixels.
If photons can encode as pixels, and we can also teleport protons, this means that not only can you store information as protons, but there is no such thing as distance anymore. It boggles the mind. This sort of technology really would change EVERYTHING. I hope it changes everything for the better, because I'm not sure humanity is ready for this. Imagine if we discovered that we could manipulate all the matter in the universe through quantum mechanisms. I mean imagine if we actually prove that the whole matter of this universe is just a hologram. It seems like nonsense, but if we can teleport atoms, and photons, and actually encode information into it, maybe we are in the Matrix. Los Alamos has actually done experiments and proven this is possible. Look at this "According to quantum information physicist Daniel F. James, the Los Alamos investigator on the project, "the significance of these results is that they represent an important step forward toward making quantum information processing a reality. Such a technology would exploit the fundamental properties of quantum mechanical systems -- the very properties that make them different from the classical physics phenomena encountered in everyday life -- in order to compute or communicate far more efficiently than is currently possible even with the most advanced super-computers."
i dont think this info is stored on one photon either, from tfa: "The image, a "UR" for the University of Rochester, was made using a single pulse of light" now im pretty sure, a pulse isnt a single photon.
i mean what did they use? a flashlight and a cardboard stencil? and why did they use such a shitty camera, i mean 861 pixels?
this is no more a storage medium than a regular camera is, its not storing anything, its just buffering the image, and then photographing it on the other end.
make a
do you think that is a storage medium?
neither do i.
"So, our photon could easily have more than ten to the tenth states. I leave the arithmetic to you as an exercise."
That looks like about 33 bits or about 4 bytes per photon. Of course the equipment required to generate and measure frequencies with 33 bit accuracy probably requires a volume large enough to hold terabytes of information using more conventional means.
The photon would pretty much have to exist by itself in the blackest region of outer space to be able to get the signal to noise ratio to store even those three bytes. On the other hand, if we could encode even one bit per photon we would be many orders of magnitude better off than we currently are.
Imagine having a photon-detector array where each cell is one square millimeter in area, while the entire detector array is, say, one square meter, giving a total of one million discrete cells. By precisely controlling the angle of one photon, one can encode a million bits on this photon by pointing it at exactly the right cell in the photon-detector array.
Ah, crap. You can encode nearly 20 bits on one photon using a 1 megapixel array. (How long before we have cogni-check in addition to spell-check?) Now, if your array were a light-year on a side...
Ah yes, that pesky ol' signal to noise ratio.
For a different example, when I worked at JPL a decade or so ago the transmissions they got from Voyager and other probes through the Deep Space Network were getting a data rate of about 1.5 bits per photon. I wonder how much their encoding algorithms have improved since then.
-- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
Surely, 640kb ought to be enough ?
This is really really interesting though. I can sort of get my head around the idea of the single photon grabbing that much quantum info on the way through the stencil - but how the hell is that info retrieved ? Any ideas ?
I have no problem with human thought being outdated, think how much more you can get done with a calculator than without one. ...Er, but whens the last time you did any complex math without a calculator...? Or balanced your checkbook?
All the phsyics stuff aside it sounds like they aren't actually achieving any kind of fancy compression or whatever.
It's like say ok my compression algorithm is "this picture of CmdrTaco is 01 and this picture of CowboyNeal is 00". This algorithm would dramatically compress the picture of CmdrTaco but the decrompression program would have to have the picture of CmdrTaco stored in it in the first place to decompress the file.
All the real information is being stored in whatever they are using to map whatever the photon is being fired through.
That being said though I suspect the actual real impact of this discovery is that they've found a much more reliable way to retrieve data from data stored in an interference pattern in a crystaline structure or some such (as opossed to our current optical technology which is really just fancy microprinting). That's just the guess of someone with poor understanding of the physics involved though.
With capitalization, I re-enforce my own value every time I hit, "Shift-I". I am not small. I am significant; a strong, smart, elastic force poorly described by a lower-case 'i'. (And no, it's not about ego, but rather about having respect for the creative force from which we are all made.) --It's all about self-love; you MUST love the self; if you do not, you cannot grow, you cannot be loved in return. I know this sounds like dollar-store self-help, but so what? It's True and it's Important. We are all worthy of self-love, but you cannot claim or use that power unless you allow yourself to do so. Every time you attack your own sense of self-worth by thinking of yourself as insignificant and un-vital and unworthy, you create that through proof of being. You limit and diminish yourself. --Your focus really does determine your reality. If you hate yourself, then misery will be drawn into your life to show you that you are right. Guaranteed.
Despite the image sold to us by weekly pop-culture news papers and the like, there is absolutely nothing noble about embracing darkness and a cynical, sad outlook. It does not bring you closer to awareness; rather it takes people who are beginning to grow their awareness and it locks them down by selling the lie of powerlessness. Just another form of media-driven slavery.
Shine bright and make waves. Or go crawl off and die while nobody cares. You don't win points for being a loser, except of course in the form of approval from other sad and powerless beings. --A clever system of reinforcement. Do you cringe from me now? Do you wince and think, "ugh, i can't stand these bright people who speak of self-love and positive thinking!" (we hates them, precious!) That's more programming. Shed it. You are worth far, far more than that.
Your comments relevant to the article, btw, are similarly limited. You missed the point several times. I'm guessing that this and your small i's are related.
Now, of course, I am making a bazillion assumptions with all of this, and I very much hope that I am totally wrong. If I am, then please drop my comments at once and move on in lightness knowing in strength who you really are.
Big Eyes. A limited self can only see a limited universe. Perception is Power.
-FL
"Unlike most other systems for slowing light, this one worked at very low light levels. In one experiment, the "UR" image was clear even when a single photon -- the smallest possible quantity of light -- was beamed through the stencil."
... search for "delayed single photon self interference".
A little googling shows it's theoretically possible
Sometimes nature is counterintuitive.
This article was not well written, so confusion is understandable.
As I understood it, the researchers used a single photon to cast the shadow from a complex image, (the 'UR' stencil). This was achieved through the fact that a photon is also a wave and waves can carry more data than a single on-off state. This is because a wave is not a single, defined object but rather a motion through another medium which, in this case, we do not fully understand the nature of.
Since human eyes cannot detect the light from a single photon/wave, their device generated a computer graphic to explain what it could see. The graphic displayed on the website is just an interpreted visualization of what their sensing device recorded, and as such uses a lot more data and photons to do the same job for our eyes.
-FL
This kind of sounds like a time-lapse exposure built up from individual photons stored in the cesium gas. If only one photon goes through, they can't get the whole image, but if they slow a series of photons in the gas, they build up a more detailed shadow of the stencil that they can detect on the other side.
> But even though I am a little weak in math, I think that 2 real numbers contain more information
> than a single real number.
One real number and two real numbers can both encode infinite information, and the same "size" infinite, Aleph-one.
However, I would be really surprised if quantum mechanics allowed us to store a real number in the energy of a photon, I'd assume some discretization taking place, making it Aleph-zero instead. And relativity would bound the amount of energy we can store to at most the one found in our light cone, make it finite.
I just wondered if anyone noticed that this news story is exactly the same as the one /. posted under the heading, Slow Light = Fast Computing, on January 19?
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
I have to say yes to number 3. In a swimming pool, used as a woman.
It seems to me that if I was on that ship, I'd briefly turn off the engines (and risk radiation poisoning, particle damage), quickly turn the ship around the other way (lots of ways this can be achieved without engines), and then turn the engine back on. Voilà! Instant deceleration! Of course, I guess that might have made the story less interesting.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
How you do this, of course, is left as an exercise for the reader. When a photon is detected it ceases to exist - which means you have to arrange for a method of detection which infallibly records its energy in the one chance you get.
Pining for the fjords
not hardly!
you might have a million detectors - but that can be represented (addressed)by 20 bits of data. Then again, you've got no more than about a 90% chance at best of the photon regisering 1 electron in the sensor - assuming that it is not blocked by a floating piece of dust.
ahh the old "i-have-nothing-to-add-so-ill-criticize-capitaliza tion" gag. the same old crap cleverly hidden beneath this well written veneer of bullshit. but i got a few minutes so ill bite.
for the record. i dont have time to capitalize my i's, and neither do you, we live in a fast paced world, time is money. so basically your saying that your time is worth less than mine. which is fine, i would never dare impose my own personal tenets on someone else, which i might add is something you have no problem doing, and are very vocal about.
i also dont appreciate the connotations linking undercase i's to passivity, or low intelligence. you see when i make wild claims such as these, i will have the common decency to cite my sources.
now if only someone could stop by and moderate him as 100% redundant, or offtopic, that would be super.
Added content? Fine. As per your point in the original. . .
The researchers used a single photon to cast the shadow from a complex image, (the 'UR' stencil). This was achieved through the fact that a photon is also a wave and waves can carry more data than a single on-off state. This is because a wave is not a single, defined object but rather a motion through another medium which, in this case, we do not fully understand the nature of.
Since human eyes cannot detect the light from a single photon/wave, their device generated a computer graphic to explain what it could see. The graphic displayed on the website is just an interpreted visualization of what their sensing device recorded, and as such uses a lot more data and photons to do the same job for our eyes.
As for my comments regarding 'i's. . .
for the record. i dont have time to capitalize my i's, and neither do you, we live in a fast paced world, time is money. so basically your saying that your time is worth less than mine.
That's ridiculous and you know it.
I didn't realize that it was a chip on your shoulder. It struck me as a self-esteem issue, so I thought I might comment to some benefit. But since it was a chip, (which the bearer wants somebody to notice and have knocked off so that they can experience the joy of being righteously indignant), then I'm similarly happy to oblige.
Public forum posting is all about expressing views, particularly when they are being called for.
-FL
The classical way to quantify information is in bits, no? It seems like a real can hold a helluva lot of information, so what's the real-to-bit conversion? I assume it's somehow accounted for by an expanded definition involving qubits.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
1 g = approx. 9.8 m/s
:)
1 light year = 299798452*3600*24*365.25 = 9460919628835200 m
1 light year / year^2 = answer/(3600*24*365.25)^2 = 9.5000396734859431642456967576749 m/s
Interesting
I do have one question though - at 1 g accelaration, it would take :
299792458/9.8 = 30591067.142857142857142857142857 seconds = 354.0632771164021164021164021164 days
So, in less than a year, you would hit the speed of light. How would you be able to accelarate past it?
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
Yeah, but the photon is GPL. So is any derivative work :)
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
As you approach the speed of light, an equal amount of force (the "g" that you're feeling) results in diminishing acceleration. The figures I gave were for a constant force rather than for a constant acceleration (from the Earth frame of reference).
An alternative way to view it is that at any given point, you are accelerating away from the frame of reference that is traveling at the same speed as you (but that is not accelerating), at 9.8 m/s^2. Of course, this reference frame is, by definition, at rest, so you can never accelerate past the speed of light. Since velocities near the speed of light do not add linearly, you will also never exceed the speed of light from the reference frame of Earth.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
About 5 years will have passed on Earth. This would not be merely academic, either. If you started to decelerate at the half-way point, it would take you almost 3.6 years to make the trip (both the acceleration and deceleration require general relativity and not just special relativity), and more than 5.9 years will have passed on Earth. If you then returned back to Earth, using the same strategy, you would be 4.7 years younger than your twin that you left behind.
A more interesting thought is of visiting Betelgeuse (pronounced "beetle juice"), which is about 520 light-years away. Accelerating for half the trip at 1 g, then decelerating, and returning with the same method, requires a total round-trip time of about 24.4 years, as experienced by the traveler. On Earth, well over a thousand years (~1,044) will have passed.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Of course, the last time I used them was in elementary school. :) (We had a really cool teacher who taught some of us binary and hexadecimal stuff in 6th grade.)
When I want to sound older than I am, I also mention that the first president I voted for was Gerald Ford. Of course, as with the punch cards, it was in elementary school. It was the start of an excellent track record, too. I voted for Ford vs. Carter, then Carter vs. Reagan, Mondale vs. Reagan, Dukakis vs. Bush I, Clinton vs. Bush I (only "winner" I picked), Dole vs. Clinton, Gore vs. Bush, and Kerry vs. Bush (or, more accurately, anti-Bush vs. anti-Kerry). I'm batting 0.125.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
and yes i do know it, its called sarcasm. a little taste of your entire first post, a little passive aggressive maligning that you are so skilled with.
and as for the actual facts, fine i may be incorrect there, ill concede that much, however i still hold that my punctuation is entirely adequate for this medium. and save your psychiatric evaluations please, theyre just a poorly disguised insult, and you know it.
The reason I spent time wondering is that I've never liked systems which try to remove individuality and force conformity. Feeling a force within me which comes from exactly that place which I've always despised is a curious and somewhat alarming thing so I spent time trying to figure it out.
The best I came up with was the following. . .
I think it has to do with the perception of disharmony. You deliberately do not fit the medium through a means which I now realize might have been aggressively chosen. Before I thought it was due to poor self-esteem and a desire to fit in with skater/hacker/disenfranchised-teen culture which offers some solace through its, "We hurt but at least we're all hurting together," head-space. I thought, "There is a better way; simply stop hurting and find strength and happiness within the self." I tried to put forth that intent, although it was an effort to do so because there was also the desire to reshape your typing style because I thought it was ugly and disharmonious. Like a sour note in the middle of a song.
Then I realized with your response that there was something more going on; that there was a rebelliousness and sneering quality to your approach, which is probably where the hackles raised; the way I have chosen to type and which I see works best is being attacked by somebody who has deliberately chosen differently. I must defend 'My Way'!
Which boils down to: Poster doesn't fit because either A) He doesn't think he is strong enough and only needs a bit of help to sing clearly, or B) Because the Poster find the current system repulsive and attacks it through deliberately choosing a different way and inserting it in a manner which causes disharmony.
Are these responses healthy on my part? I don't know. I'm still pondering that. That exploration in itself is the important thing.
Whatever the case. . , I strongly suspect that this type of experience will happen over and over again for you, (you seemed to indicate that it already has done), until you finally understand the source of your deliberate disharmony and figure out what it means for you and why you do it. I'm guessing you have put forth a big lump of further thought on the subject in the last week. I'd be curious to know what you came up with. I've offered my guesses, but they aren't worth much since the real motivation comes from within you. I've got my own stuff to figure out, namely, where the balance of individuality, rebellion, harmony and repressiveness all fit together and why I react the way I do. Again, I've made my own guesses, and I'll have to see how I move forth from this point.
In any case, this has been a challenging and fascinating bit of back-and-forth. Thank-you.
And good luck!
-FL