Okay, so on Friday, we began looking at operators, the connection between observables and operators. So the observable is the primitive start, is the starting point of our discussion. An observable has a spectrum, in other words, there are possible values you can get when you measure this observable, so an observable is something you can measure. So it has possible answers, and to each answer there is at least one state in which you are certain of getting that answer. So a state where there is no ambiguity, there is no question, there's nothing probabilistic about the result of that measurement. Out of those states and those numbers, we construct an operator, this animal here, and one good thing about this operator, one useful aspect of it is, that if you squeeze it between the ket, the state of your system and the associated bra, you get out the expectation value of the observable q when we're in this state. So when there is uncertainty and the result of the measurement is probabilistic, which normally will be the case, for most states will be the case, then this simple algebraic formula we showed last time, I think that's where we finished, that that leads to the expectation value of that measurement, so that's one way in which this operator q is useful. You'll find as we go along that there are many other ways in which this operator q, which for the moment is going to have a hat to distinguish it from the observable q, which is a physical conceptual thing, and the operator, which is just some mathematical fiction which we're going to get used to. Gradually the distinction will blur, but I hope when you need to, you can distinguish between the physical thing, so energy is the physical thing, and energy comes with an operator, which at the moment will be called e hat. Well, actually we did introduce that, so the operator e hat is for historical reasons called h, and of course it is the operator sum of all possible energies of energy. So these are the states of well-defined energy, and these are the corresponding energies, and this is the Hamiltonian in honor of the Irish mathematician who introduced this into classical physics, the corresponding operator into classical physics. Okay, so any, I guess you will have, I hope you will recognize from Professor Eslis' lectures that if we have given a basis, any old basis, then every operator can be turned into a matrix, because given a basis we can say given any state phi, then this will be the sum ai, i can be written as this linear combination of basis vectors. If we use any operator q on, on a psi, we're going to get some other animal phi, and we can expand phi, we can say that this is equal to the sum of bi i, and then this becomes q operating on the sum of aj j, this being summed over j, this being summed over i, alright, that's just substituting in here, and then if I want to find out what bi is, or actually let's change this to k, make it slightly cleaner job, this is just a dummy index, I can call it anything I like, let us call it k, if I want to find what bi is, I pick out, to pick out of this sum over all the possible, all the bk's, I, I course bra through with i, so I bra through with i, and that leads me to the conclusion that bi, because there's on this sum, we're going to have an i k here, which is going to be nothing except when k is i, so I get a bi is equal to the sum over j, the sum of i of i operate q j times aj, because this is a complex number, so when we bra through by i, it doesn't get in the way, because i is a linear function on the kets, so we can write this as the sum over j and i of q ij, aj, where q ij is by definition, the complex number that you get in this way by taking the jth basis vector operating on it with the operator q, and then taking the dot product as it were braing through with i, so every operator can be represented by a matrix of complex numbers, and of course any one of these things is called, any one of those numbers is called a matrix element, and a lot of quantum mechanics, a lot of physics revolves around calculating matrix elements, so it's a word that's often used, so it's a matrix made out of matrix elements, these matrix elements are complex numbers, so if, now another point to make is, if the basis i is a basis of the eigenvectors of q, and I forgot to last, on Friday already I think we saw, I forgot to mention it just now, I think on Friday we saw that these things, well we defined q this way, and with this definition it turned out that q i is an eigen ket of q, of q and q i is an eigenvalue, that was a consequence, so these physically important states are, as a consequence of this definition, these physically important states become eigen kets, eigenvectors of the operator q and these become the eigenvalues, so now we can say something different, we can say q is constructed out of its eigen kets and its eigenvalues in this manner, whereas previously we had a physical statement that the operator q was constructed out of the states in which there's no ambiguity as to the measurement, and the possible results of the measurement. So if we use the eigen kets q i as our basis vectors, then this matrix becomes very simple, then q ij is going to be of course i, q, well I'm going to put this in as q i, q j, but q on q j is necessarily q j times q j, so this becomes q j times q i times q j, but this is delta ij, so this becomes q j times delta ij. So these matrix elements vanish unless j is equal to i, when j is equal to i, we get the number q j. In other words, in this basis, q is represented by a diagonal matrix. In other words, q is going to look like the matrix of q, q ij is going to be q 1, q 2, q 3, all these numbers down the diagonal and nothing everywhere else and so on until we're bored or run out of, more to the point run out of possible states in which q has a well-defined value. Okay. As a result of that, if we take the complex conjugate, no, I'd not do this. Yeah, all right. So the Hermitian adjoint, I think I'm going to take it that you remember this from Professor Esler's lectures, the Hermitian adjoint of q ij of q, sorry, the matrix q. Now, we've got three things now. It's a bit confusing, isn't it? We've got a physical quantity q like the energy. We've got an operator q hat and we've got a matrix which is in one particular set of basis vectors is representing the operator. So I'm a little bit short of notations. I've got a q and a q hat, but I'm tempted to write q ij, which sometimes means the particular complex number that you will find in the i-th row and the j-th column of the matrix q. But sometimes we use this notation q ij to imply the matrix that represents q. Do you see that there's a slight overbooking of notation here? It's universal in theoretical physics. You can't, well, nobody has a natty way of distinguishing between the matrix and the matrix elements. So let me just write the matrix q. So the Hermitian adjoint of the matrix q is q dagger and q dagger is defined. So the ij-th element of it is the complex conjugate of the ji-th element of the matrix q. This means the complex conjugate. So the Hermitian conjugate is you take, you swap rows and columns and you take the complex conjugate. That's what happens with the individual elements. So let's see what happens here. This property doesn't depend on what basis we look at it in. So let's have a look at it there. So what is this? q ij, so in the particular basis of the eigenvectors of q, what does this statement become? It becomes that q dagger ij is equal to we figured out what q ji is. q ji turned out to be q up there, i delta ij doesn't matter. That's what we found. So that's q ij in this particular basis, and now I, sorry, ji, I've swapped, I hope I've swapped it over. Now I take the complex conjugate, if q i is real, then this becomes q i times delta ij is equal to q ij. So the Hermitian adjoint of q will be q itself if it's possible, if all the elements in its spectrum are real. And traditionally people have said, it's obvious that an observable is a real number. And I remember was an undergraduate thinking, hang on a moment, that's ridiculous. The impedance of a circuit, right, is something that I have to measure. Might be something you do in one of the, might have done last year in some of the electronics practicals, measure the impedance of this circuit at this frequency. It's clearly a complex number. So it's nonsense to say that observables have to be real. Of course they don't have to be real. But if they are real, then the observable will be represented by an Hermitian matrix. So if the spectrum is all real, then q hat is Hermitian. This is, in the great majority of treatments, this is all back to front. People say that every observable is going to be represented by or associated with a Hermitian operator. They then use some well-known theorem, which I'm sure you've met, which says that every Hermitian operator has real eigenvalues and orthogonal eigencets. And then therefore they say the eigencets of these things are orthogonal. That's not the way actually the flow of the logic of the, of the flow from the real physical world into the mathematical world works. It's the other, it's the real argument is that the eigenstates in which the states, sorry, the states in which q has a well-defined value have to be mutually orthogonal because why? Because qi, qj, this complex number is the amplitude to get qj given qi. And if you know that the result of the measurement is going to be qi, this, this amplitude has to vanish for any qj not equal to qi. So this orthogonality comes in as a physical requirement of the way we want to use the theory. Then if the eigenvalues are all real, if the spectrum, the possible results are all real, then you end up with Hermitian matrices, right? But there's no need to be working with Hermitian matrices if you want to work with the complex impedance as you're observable. That's not required, but what you do need is this orthogonality result. That is a consequence of, that's a logical necessity of the way we want to interpret the mathematics. OK, now we can, of course, multiply operators together. So something else we can do with operators is we've got two operators, r and q. We can define this animal by the rule that this multiplied object operating on any state of psi is simply the result of using the operators in the sequence given. That is to say you use q on a psi first, which makes you some ket, which you then use r on, et cetera. And when we, if we choose to look at this, if we ask, so what's the matrix of rq? So what's the matrix of this in some basis, in any basis now? It's going to be i r, what does this mean? It means rqj. And into here, we can stick one of our identity operators, the sum of m of m, m, right? We saw on Friday that this sum is the identity operator. You can stick an identity operator anywhere into a product.  And this now needs a sum of m. And what is that? This is rim. This is qmj. So this is just the usual rule for a matrix product. So it's rimqmj. And we will want to know what the Hermitian adjoint of this thing is. We'll want to know what rq dagger ij is. And so what is that going to be? It's going to be i r hat. Do I want to do this? I think I probably don't. I think probably you've seen this done. I think what I want to, you've seen this done in the math physics lectures this year. So I think we can just remind you that this is q hat dagger r hat dagger, right? When you take the Hermitian adjoint of a product of operators, you reverse the order of the things in the product and dagger the individual bits. And I hope you've seen the demonstration. You'll find the demonstration in the book. If you haven't seen it, you don't recall the demonstration. From Professor Estlis' lectures, then this is all a bit dry and boring, isn't it? OK, one thing you may not have seen is functions of operators. So in particular, for a given example, x, the position x down the x-axis is going to become an operator. And we are going to want to evaluate functions of x like the potential energy at the position x. Depends upon x and therefore is a function of x. So in classical physics, there is a potential function v of x that tells you the potential energy at the location x. And since x is going to become an operator, v is going to become an operator which is obtained by taking a function of an operator. So we need to know what it means to take a function of an operator. Another example is there's going to be an operator associated with momentum. The kinetic energy of a particle in classical physics is p squared over 2m, the momentum squared over twice the mass because that's a half mv squared in classical physics. So p squared is a function of p, a very simple one. It's a function of p. So we need to know what it means to take a function of an operator. When you do statistical mechanics, you will need to, there is a quantity, a density operator, which you calculate the entropy of a system which involves a logarithm of the density operator. So you need to be able to take the logarithm of something. So we need to be able to take functions of operators. So let's decide what this means. So what we're going to be done, we're going to imagine, we're given f of x. So this is just a boring, at the moment, this is just a boring number. Suppose we're given a function. This is a boring number, and that's a boring number. I'm just giving an ordinary function of a complex valued function of a complex valued number, say. And let's imagine that we can tailor expand this. So we can write this as f naught, the value that f takes at naught plus f1 of x, the first derivative, plus a half f2 x squared over 2 factorial. This is the second derivative plus a third, sorry, at 1 over 3 factorial of 6, f3 x cubed, oops, over 3 factorial, et cetera. So we're going to imagine that our function can be tailor-through as expanded. In detail, it might not be possible to expand it around the origin, but then we can expand it around some other place in some little neighborhood. Physicists always assume they can expand their functions. And sometimes that leads to major disasters. There are important bits of physics which happen only because you can't actually tailor-series expand everything in life. But it's a good starting point. So we're given this function. Now we want to know what f of q is. So what is f of q? The answer to that is this. It's the sum of f of qi, qi, qi. So this is the definition. When we say a function of an operator, this is what we mean. So what is it? This here is an operator which has, so it has the same eigencets as its argument, right? So a function takes an argument. The argument is an operator. This operator has eigencets. So a function of an operator has the same eigencets by construction. But the eigenvalues are the given function of the old eigenvalues. And can you see that this is guaranteed to work? Because we started with a function of a real valued function on the real variable. So then this is just going to be some real number so this is a perfectly well-defined thing. But actually it would all work perfectly fine with complex values functions of a complex argument. So this is what we mean by a function of an operator. I'm going to, it's a problem. I mean, I'm leaving it as a problem. You can now show, so on some problem set, it's a problem to show that this definition is the same as f of q is equal to f naught times the identity plus f1 times q plus f2 over 2 q times q plus, right? So if you've got the Taylor series expansion, then you know what this stuff means, right? Because we know what it is to multiply an operator on itself. We may not know what it is to take the logarithm of an operator, but we do know what it is to multiply an operator on itself as many times as you usually will want because we've defined multiplication of operators. So this right-hand side has a well-defined meaning and it's an exercise to prove, not desperately difficult, to prove that this animal on the right that we're defining here has, as eigenvectors, these animals and its eigenvalues, these animals and therefore these two definitions coincide. But this is the more general definition because this doesn't assume that we can do any Taylor series expanding, this does, but when you can do a Taylor series expansion or somehow express f in terms of algebra which has meaning for operators, which is to say only multiplication. For example, you can't divide one operator by another operator, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, but you can multiply them together. So when this definition works, then this one is the same as this one and that's an exercise that I would encourage you to do. But we'll not take time to do it now because we're setting up these mathematical operators and I'm sure you're all dying to do a bit of physics and I am too. But we do have to cover a couple of little things here, commutators. Oh, actually, perhaps, sorry, perhaps we should, it's time I moved over here. Okay, so in some sense the big news with operators is that A hat, B hat is not necessarily equal to B hat, A hat. You know this already in as much as you know that matrix multiplication doesn't commute generally. So when you're multiplying matrices together, you don't expect the product this way and the product that way to agree and we've agreed that operators, once we take a particular basis vector, system of basis vectors, can be represented by matrices. So it's not surprising that there is this non-commutability. And the elementary text claim this is the key thing about quantum mechanics, I claim this is not the key thing about quantum mechanics, non-commuting things occur also in classical physics and we'll see that concretely as we go down the line. However, it is a fact that these operators do not commute and we spend a great deal of time calculating this animal which is AB minus BA. Okay, so the definition of A and B, A comma B in a square bracket is that it means just this. Now, we have some obvious results. We have that A comma B plus C, the commutator of A with B and C, the result of adding B to C, is clearly the sum from this definition it follows that it is just this sum. Oh yeah, we have this obvious result that AB is equal to BA plus A comma B. One of the reasons why we need to know the value, as you will see, why we need to know the value of a commutator is because we often need to swap, we often need to want to whatever, we often want to swap the order in which operators occur around and the way to do it is to write that AB is BA plus this commutator which is obviously true, the way I think of it is this adds in the thing that I should have had and takes away the thing that I've put in that I'm not entitled to have, but it's obvious, right? And now finally, a less obvious result which is that AB, the product AB commuted with C is equal to A comma C with B standing by on the outside of the commutator plus, excuse me, plus A with C comma B like this. It's easy to prove this, I encourage you to prove it, I'm not going to take time to do it, all you have to do is write down what this is from that definition and then insert two extra terms which cancel each other and you'll find you can arrange it like this. It should be B comma C, you're absolutely right, thank you very much for that. The other one I got right, yep. Okay, so what is this analogous to, this is analogous to D by DC of AB, if I have to do a differential of a product with respect to C, then that is equal to D A by DC B plus A D B by DC, right? This is the rule for differentiating the product and can you see the mirror there? The idea is that taking the commutator of something with C is analogous to taking the derivative of something with C and this is no accident, this for a mathematician in certain contexts is called a lead derivative and the rule that we are familiar with here is that you first of all, if you have a product you can get the result by having this operation happen on the first thing, well the second stands idly by and then you let the first one stand idly by and then you work on the second one. So here we have, you work on the first one, second standing idly by and then you work on the second one with the first one standing idly by. The only material difference between these formulae is that this formula is left invariant if I move B over here or if I move A over there or whatever, if I change the order here it won't make any difference because these are ordinary boring multiplications of complex numbers but here it does make a difference like this A comma C is an operator, it's the difference of two operators so it's an operator and therefore it isn't clear that I can swap the order of this operator and this operator and the order in which you write those things down is important. So these rules should be kind of, you should make sure you understand where they come from, you should memorize them and broadly speaking, once you've got these three rules on board you never need to look inside a commutator and use this relationship here, it's bad practice by and large when you're doing computations to expand commutators to see what's inside them in the same way I would say as this rule here of course comes from looking at A B evaluated at C plus delta C minus A B evaluated at C all over delta C limit, all this stuff using this stuff you can prove this but once you've got the rules of calculus you don't do this expanding stuff anymore you just, you know that's what lies underneath it that's the justification but you don't go back to that every time you have to do a calculation every time you have to differentiate D B D X of X cubed you do not write that this is X plus delta X cubed minus X cubed all over delta X cubed and come to the conclusion that it's about three X squared do you? So please don't resist the temptation to expand out a commutator to write the contents of a commutator out there are times when ultimately you have to do that but most of the time you don't and try and avoid doing it by using these rules here okay okay I'm going to need one result which combines these statements and those statements we're going to need very shortly to calculate what F of B comma A is so I've got it so I will want the commutator concretely this is going to be V of X and I'm going to want to take the commutator with the momentum operator and these things these all need hats I suppose yeah and those things up there need hats but okay imagine them on so this is I'm going to want to I'm going to want to calculate something like this so let's see what this comes to in order to see what it comes to I'm going to imagine that I can expand F in this manner so I can write this as F naught times the identity plus F1 times B plus F2 over 2 times B squared plus blah blah right the Taylor series expansion of F around the origin commuted with A so now I can use that second rule there second rule to do the commutator of this product this is a boring number right this is a number this is the identity operator that's a number but this is the identity operator and the identity operator obviously commutes with everybody because I times A is going to be A same as A times I is going to be A so the commutator so I use the second rule to say that the commutator of this sum with A is the sum of the commutators of this thing with A vanishes and this thing with A so that's going to be F1 B hat, A hat this comes outside the commutator maybe I should have added that to the rule list there because it's a boring number but I think it's kind of an obvious principle plus F2 over 2 factorial of B hat squared, A plus F3 over 3 factorial B hat cubed, A plus plus plus plus plus plus plus plus till you're bored so that's the middle rule used now we use the last rule to say that this is F1 well this is just a repeat but this B squared is B times B so I can expand this into F2 into B hat, A hat, B hat plus so it was BB commuted with A so I worked on the first B while the second B stood idly by and now I have to put down the first B standing idly by and have the second B worked on by A plus dot dot dot plus F3, etc. which is going to involve three terms because it'll be BBB commuted with A so there'll be three things to consider and this is as far as I can go in general but in an important case if B hat, A hat commutes with B so if this commutator B hat, A hat, commutator is an operator because it's the difference of two operators so if this operator commutes with B hat then this B, A and this B, A and this one could all be taken outside and I have that under this condition that F of B hat commuted with A hat is equal to B hat, A hat times F1 plus F2 plus can you see it'll be F3 over 2 because the F3 would have been over 3 factorial but we would have had three terms oh sorry this is going to be times B this is silly me this is going to be times B hat this is going to be times B hat squared plus so this is what this will all reduce to which can be more conveniently written as dF by dB so this is an operator whoops sorry yeah it doesn't matter which order I put it in this is an operator and that Taylor series is the Taylor series for dF by dx so I can write this stuff here as dF by dB and then here is my B, A and I was momentarily panicked about having written this in front of this and we've agreed that this operator commutes with B that was the condition under which we were making this further development and if this thing commutes with B it commutes with every function of B in particular it commutes with dF by dB which is a function of B so it doesn't matter which order I put this in this is a function which means it has the same eigencats so that's a result we're going to want and there's one other thing that needs to be discussed which is the physical implications of A commuting with B so if A hat, B hat equals 0 we say commuting observables then the mathematicians assure us we have a theorem and the theorem is that in this case there is a complete set of mutual eigencats we'll call these mutual eigencats just i that is to say for each and every one of these it is true that A hat on i is equal to A i i and simultaneously B hat on i is equal to some number B i on i when two operators commute there's a theorem that says this what does that mean for the real physical world what that says for the real physical world is there is a complete set of states these states in which the result of making a measurement of A is definitely known and simultaneously the result of making a measurement of B is certainly known so there is a complete set of states in which there is no ambiguity there is nothing probabilistic about the result of measuring either of these quantities it's very important to bear in mind that complete we're not merely saying that there is a state or ten states with this property there are enough states with this property that any state can be written as a linear combination whatever, g i of these objects right, they're complete that's what completeness means that any state so there is complete set of states in which there is absolute certainty it does not mean that the fact that there is no uncertainty in the value that B takes implies that there is no uncertainty in the value that A takes that does not follow from the commuting of A and B as we will see it may well be the case that there are states in which B definitely has a value for which A is uncertain so the result of two observables commuting their operator is commuting is slightly technical because it involves this complete statement it is that there is a complete set of states in which the outcomes of the measurements of both observables are certain okay now if A, B not equal to zero what does this mean all it means is that there is at least one cat such that A, B there may be an infinite number of cats such that A, B operates on them and produces nothing but there is one, there is at least one if you say that these operators don't commute you're saying, you're asserting that there is at least one cat the commutator operating when it doesn't produce nothing so if so what does this imply it implies that there is no complete so it's a very weak, not emotionally striking result that there just isn't a complete set of states in which they both have definite values there may be a very large number of states in which they do have definite values simultaneously so it is not a statement that you can't know the value of this simultaneously with the value of that we'll come across a counter example next term I guess a very important counter example so don't run away it's very, very widely held misconception that if two operators don't commute you can't know the value of the one and the value of the other that's just not true the statement is that there isn't a complete set of states in which there is that nice property we've just got time to start on the next really important section which is about time evolution maybe it's time to move over here okay so physics is about prophecy it's prophecy that works it's about predicting the future that's what it's about and therefore the core of it is equations of motion Newtonian mechanics we think of usually as to do with F equals MA it's making a statement of what the acceleration is when you can calculate the acceleration and you know the initial position and velocity you can predict where your missile is going to be at some future time where your planet is going to be at some future time and so on that's what it's all about so the core of quantum mechanics sits its time evolution equation and I'm not going to immediately justify this I'm just going to write it down it's the time the time dependent this is the core of the subject this is where the physics sits and it's IH bar oops IH bar dpsi by dt is equal to Hpsi this is why it's because it appears in this central crucial vital equation the Hamiltonian sits here that's why the Hamiltonian matters its status in life is unique because it uniquely tells you about the future and that's what physics is about and this is the state any system so it's completely non-negotiable for a state which purports to describe a real physical object it has to satisfy this equation it tells you how the state evolves in time it's of course a very abstract object at the moment it won't be telling you much and at the moment I can't connect it we will be connecting it very shortly but just at the moment I can't connect this for most of you to classical mechanics those of you who've done did the S7 short option will recognise this perhaps just a little bit as having something to do with Hamilton's equations but we will so the justification the physical justification is we will come by and by but ultimately there's no way this can be derived from anything you already know this cannot be derived out of classical physics classical physics can be derived out of this because classical physics provides an approximation to this right the assertion is that nature evolves things according to this equation and whether that's true or not can only be determined by experiment it's got nothing to do with mathematics and it cannot be justified on the basis of classical physics ultimately but if this is a valid statement it should it should produce the right Newtonian equations of motion I will show you that it does produce the right Newtonian equations of motion because Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to quantum mechanics okay now suppose this is kind of a scary equation let's try and find some circumstances in which we can solve this so suppose our system has well-defined energy in other words the state of psi at time t well the state of psi is equal to E where H E is equal to E E right a state of well-defined energy has to be an eigenfunction of the energy operator H and value E that's what it is so let's suppose that we happen our system happens to have well-defined energy then it will have to solve this equation and we'll have I H bar D E by D T is equal to H E oops H E is equal to E E so the rate of change of E is simply proportional to E and we know how to solve that equation we spot it just from ordinary old-fashioned calculus we spot that this implies that E at time t is equal to E to the minus I E T over H bar E at zero so I feel entitled to write this down on the basis of just boring classical mathematics which says that if we know that D X by D T if I know that D X by D T where X is some variable is equal to A X that implies that X of T is equal to X of naught E to the A T so this result familiar result inspires me to write down that that I can now trivially check by differentiating this right-hand side that it satisfies this differential equation because when I differentiate this right-hand side this thing is not a function of time it's the value that the state of well-defined energy takes at time t equals naught so it has no time derivative so the time derivative comes merely from this which is a totally boring exponential of a bunch of real numbers well, apart from the I I can differentiate this so it's easy to evaluate the time derivative of this and it's trivial to check that then E satisfies this equation so what does this tell us? this is a very important result it tells us that the time evolution of states of well-defined energy is really dead trivial they basically don't change all that happens is that their phase goes around in increments of the constant rate E over H bar which is of course incredibly for typical systems like this is incredibly large because H bar is so small and it's on the bottom there so this frequency is stupendous for an object like that so this thing has some energy and its wave function is zooming around at some hysterical rate that's all that's happening the beautiful thing is that this enables us to solve the general problem because if I have I want to solve I've got now some system that's not in a state of well-defined energy and we'll see that real systems never are in states of well-defined energy but then I can surely write this as a linear combination with coefficients that depend on time of states of well-defined energy these are a complete set of states because we've been through this this is just boring so I can put I simply put this ansatz this expression, this expansion into both sides of my time dependent Schrodinger equation and we discover that IH bar dpsi by dt is equal to IH bar brackets we have to differentiate this stuff so it's an dot ent plus an times the time derivative of this times the en by dt what's that equal to that's equal to on this side H into the sum an en I've missed out a sum over n indeed I have, I've missed out a sum over n thank you just about here I'm kind of conscious of that horrible clock and but well okay why don't we just write this why don't we just carry this on and write this as the sum over n of an h en this term, this term here cancels this term here IH bar an so IH bar d en by dt is h en so these terms all cancel those terms leading to the conclusion so when I look at this stuff is equal to this stuff I've cancelled this so the right side now says nothing and the left side has this stuff has a dot so I've got the conclusion that the sum over n of an dot en of t equals naught bra through with a an EI of t and that leads to the conclusion that ai dot equals naught so the a's, the ai are constant so we have a solution this enables us to write down the solution to the general problem we have that psi of t is equal to the sum of some constants an which you can determine from the initial conditions times en of t but I can explicitly write that out because I know how this thing evolves in time this is the sum an of naught e to the minus i en of t en t of h bar times en of naught so once now so this is the really really this is a fabulously important equation sort of this part of it is needs to be burnt into the back of the retina and it's the key to everything because what it tells us is once we know what these states of well-defined energy are and the approved energies we can trivially evolve in time the dynamical state of our system and predict the future we have everything, that's it so a large part, a huge part of this subject revolves around finding what these states of well-defined energy are because they have this enormous predictive power they are their miracle they're sort of one to drug they solve the problem, they do it so we'll talk some more about them tomorrow


Hi everybody. I'm excited to introduce this panel on trauma informed policing. I think it's a hugely important topic obviously just because it's intrinsically important. We're talking here about the lives and the well-being of hundreds of thousands of public servants in the country but also because I think it represents a really important and different way of thinking about the problems of policing today and and some of the possibilities of police reform. First of all when we think about what's broken about our approach to policing in this country we often focus on the impact that policing has on people in the community who are the objects of policing and obviously that's really important but we also need to focus on the way our system of policing affects police officers themselves. The job of policing is is hard. It can take a huge toll on a lot of officers and when it does that that in turn can have a big impact on the way that police do their jobs in the community. Police make life or death decisions. They get called to resolve crises and conflicts that have reached a boiling point. They see us in our most vulnerable moments you know when we're victims, when we're scared, when we're in distress. It's never easy to manage those kinds of difficult situations in a graceful and professional way but if you are sleep deprived and emotionally spent and struggling with your own mental health challenges it can be almost impossible. Police work doesn't have to happen under those conditions and the fact that it does is a failure of public policy and a failure of police management. This is the kind of issue that should be able to unite people. It doesn't pit the community against the police and this kind of stalemate that we sometimes see in police reform. It's about meeting the needs of police officers and community members more effectively recognizing that in some cases they're both victims of the way we've organized our systems of policing in this country and that fixing that system can benefit everybody. The second way in which I think this topic represents a different way of thinking about police reform is equally important. In policing in lots of other areas of public policy we get really fixated. We have been really fixated for many years on accountability as the key tool of reform and that's important. Accountability is important but a one-sided focus on accountability can have a destructive impact on an organization's climate. It makes employees feel defensive and alienated from their organizations even when they're not doing anything wrong. They experience the accountability systems as kind of suspicious and constraining and hostile and demoralizing. Successful organizations don't just treat their workers as unruly children who need to be controlled. At least sometimes they also treat them as committed but imperfect and limited people who need to be supported, who need to be provided with the tools and the skills and the services that they need to do their jobs well. The mental health support that we're going to be talking about today is one really important example of that. It illustrates this really useful shift of thinking about in the police reform space away from the question of just how can we punish cops who aren't doing what they want them to do towards an equally important question which is how can we give cops the support that they need to succeed to serve the community better, make more just decisions in difficult circumstances and show more empathy for the people they interact with. So I'm really excited to hear from the panelists about the details of how we can do that and so I'm going to turn things over to Daisha to get that conversation started. Thank you David and welcome everyone to this talk about trying to inform policing. I had the privilege of being able to moderate the panel and we have three amazing people that will be talking a little bit about the work that they do and looking at looking at it from a unique lens. So again my name is Aisha Price. I use a pronoun she her and hers. I am a clinical faculty member at the University of Michigan in the School of Social Work and have had the pleasure of providing training to law enforcement officers across the state. So we could welcome Ian, Alicia Dyer and Jeff Carrick and Leah Milch Chapman, our distinguished guests this afternoon and we're just going to jump right into it everyone because we only have one hour and we want to make sure that guests can ask you questions as they come up for them while they're watching but if you all can start with introducing yourself if you want to share your pronouns you can do that as well but we want to know what is your role so what do you do and tell us why you do it. So Alicia can you get us started? Yes thank you Daisha. My name is Alicia Dyer. I go by she her. I am a third year student at the University of Michigan studying public policy and social work. My background is in law enforcement. I was a rural patrol officer for seven years in the county and currently I'm seasonally patrolling the waterways in the county and you know why I think that this panel is so important and why I even went back to grad school is when I was working in policing growing up in Ipsy I was working in a community that I lived in and I cared about a lot and throughout my career even in the beginning stages I really thought a lot about mental health and how I started learning more about trauma and started to then kind of understand how the system is not really set up to value workers inside the system and if you think about it from the origins of our criminal justice system you know this criminal justice system being built in America on slavery and oppression and controlling others it was not built from a lens of let's make sure the people that are working inside it are at their best selves it was more so built under a lens of work work work and so instead of being evaluated for you know passing out stickers or like doing foot patrol you know you see a lot of managers across the country evaluating officers on arrest and tickets and how productive they are and not necessarily focused on how well they feel thank you Alicia and so Jeff tell us a little bit about yourself hi my name is Jeff Carrick I'm a retired deputy from Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office where I served over 25 years in the community as a road patrol deputy as a narcotics detective in various other roles with the agency I retired six years ago and just prior to retirement I was diagnosed with PTSD depression and anxiety all which led to my big decision to retire when I did um since retiring I've worked in several roles in training around the local area at our local police academy as well as with the um international group where we provide um systems to help law enforcement train as well as the military also since retiring I've taken it upon myself to really be the voice of my fellow officers who have a hard time being able to speak out about mental health and about their well being um the the um industry so to speak I can't think of the word I want to use currently but the industry is definitely set up as Alicia said to work work work and it's not set up to take care of the wellness of the officers and I really believe um not being a social worker or clinically or or education having an education in that area that um the more mentally healthier officers are the better they can actually respond to and do the job and part of that is being able to step back and evaluate their mental well-being and be able to make the decisions that they need to make in order to get help thank you thank you Jeff and thank you for sharing the things you've done post retirement and I'm just wondering if you can tell us in a sentence or less like Alicia shared that she went into law enforcement because she was working in a community that she really cared about what what made you want to be a officer that's kind of a trick question for me because it's not it's not something that I um had really looked into while I was at um Eastern Michigan University I was involved in the ROTC program and was a commissioned officer in the United States Army um I didn't serve on active duty and I really didn't go into my degree area which is computer aided design and manufacturing I kind of slipped and fell into law enforcement and it seemed to be a good fit so I stayed with it I started actually as a seasonal employee um doing what Alicia is doing now which is patrolling the waterways of Washtenaw County in the summertime and I just kind of edged into full-time work there thank you and I'm sure that that will be probably a part of what our next panelists will be able to align with too is having lots of different interests but also being able to find a career that does bring in some of those things that you said Jeff about mental health and wellness and being a clinician so Liam Mills Chapman can you please introduce yourself yes thank you so much Dacia um good afternoon everyone again my name is Liam Mills Chapman um I'm a clinical therapist in Washtenaw County I've been doing this for over 10 years now um so I'm a little you know late into the game but I still feel pretty much well versed in the area I would say that a lot of my interest comes from just simply being a woman of color right being an African-American woman and seeing some of the adverse effects of policing on the black community my earlier time into this career I had a position I would say it was interesting but a position in a high secure facility with pretty much all black males and so that began to really really pique my interest looking at the trauma that they had incurred and a lot of the conversations centered around their engagement or involvement with the carceral system so after me kind of leaving that space I felt a calling knowing that in social work advocacy is a huge part of what we do I felt a calling to kind of look at this from both sides right looking at it from the side of the community as well as the side of officer to find out what exactly seems to be the problem and I think a big piece that was missing as we've been hearing is the mental health aspect of the officers the lack of diagnosing for the officers for them to be able to even know what they're dealing with right and how their trauma interfaces with right the community's trauma and then we have a huge problem kind of ensuing from there so that kind of piqued my interest early on with the carceral system and our involvement with mental health and wanting to aid our officers thank you so much so these are panelists everyone and they have some very unique perspectives that they can offer but again we want to continue to open it up for people to send in questions as we start our conversation so for each of you you all have such a breadth of experience so I know it might be hard to think about what is the one answer I want to make sure I can share with people so I'm going to try to guide us through starting with what is kind of a typical day in the life of a law enforcement officer so Alicia and Jeff you brought up a little bit about what are some of the impacts and ever's impact that have impacted you but can you share a little bit for everyone about what is a typical day we say work work work what does that look like yeah I guess I could start so I would say a it's not like the movies I think the media and movies have really kind of led to this public image that we're like always running around like lights and sirens and you know kicking doors down and I mean there's really no typical day every day is different every situation is so different but there's such a varying level of seriousness that you are and the calls that you respond to it throughout the day so summer and ipsy you know getting into shift you know you might have a domestic violence come out and then you're going to that next thing you know you're talking to a neighbor that's angry about the other neighbor's dog walking on their lawn then you could respond to a homicide and so you're going kind of up and down all day and I think that was something that I really thought about and then especially like then getting home and trying to sleep trying to decompress after all of that going on all day and then even like the report writing and a lot of the stress that comes from bureaucracy and administration trying to deal with that and then like just working a lot of hours so you might think you're getting off at 8 p.m. for example but if a late call comes in then you might get held over till midnight and so just the hardships in how much law enforcement work and then also you can't really necessarily always plan things outside of law enforcement you know if I have plans at nine and I have a late call come in you have to cancel them and there were some days that I would work after doing like three or four doubles where it's just no sleep really tired just feeling like and then you're on different shifts when you get forced to work overtime so you can't even like get a consistent sleep schedule sometimes and so yeah I'll let Jeff talk to you but that's some of my preliminary thoughts so the the the big thing for me on both ends of the shift was leaving the house and then returning to the house leaving the house always was the hardest because you had this drilled into you from the very beginning of the your career in the academy that this could be the last time that you walk out of the house very well could be and then when you return to the house as Alicia said we were you're going up and down all day so most people go through their lives and they get adrenaline dumps when when things happen that are you know stimulate them a typical police officer's day there's five to 20 adrenaline dumps in an eight hour period where you're at a heightened level of sensitive sensitivity and then you come back down to what your baseline normal is and then you're right back up and then back down and so you get home and it's time to decompress and you try to do the best you can to leave the job literally for me it was I left the job in the locker I took my gun belt off I took my uniform off that stuff went in the locker and it stayed there and it didn't travel back and forth to work on me or with me other than to get washed and taken right back to the locker room um but you're you're trying to you've seen things and done things all day and you try to go home and have a normal day where you pick your child up out of the crib and and give them a hug um maybe that happened two hours after you responded to a four year old who was run over by a automobile accident the in those types of emotions where you have seen something that is just not normal in anybody's world and then you have to go back and do normal things it's very very hard to to turn that off and turn it back on and that's what that's that's what not only are our profession required but that's what our family is required and that's what I think sometimes society even requires of us and it's very very hard to turn that light switch off and on all the time um and you almost as we said you really never leave the job it's always there is there a policy about taking time to debrief between those difficult calls those generally land um on each agency to determine when or um whether or not there's going to be some type of crisis mitigation debriefing um our agency for the most part was really good about it um however it's not it's generally not mandatory it's voluntary one of the problems with with the voluntariness of it is is you'll tell me I have to go there it doesn't mean I have to become involved in it and there's really what determines what is a um a critical incident or a critical crisis that we're going to debrief and do that on it for one agency say a small 11 man agency in northern michigan that could be a fatal car accident because they see five of them a year in an ipsy township we could see four fatals in a week we could see two homicides or two shootings or uh massive child abuse what determines what is a critical incident um and that's part of what what has come forward in policing in recent years is that we don't see one incident that causes this we see hundreds of incidents that build up inside of you and you may forget 99 of them but one of them like can trigger all 99 to come flooding back in like tomorrow so this I'm sorry to to answer again there is strictly there's really not a solid policy that encompasses everybody but it's kind of left left to the devices of the agencies I really I'm gonna try to step forward I appreciate you adding that Jeff because you even when I asked about time to debrief between the calls you went into like the critical incidents and what is what's occurring for critical incidents I know even myself I need time to debrief I'm going to debrief after this one hour because I need to breathe and so Leah when you hear Alicia and Jeff talk about these things from a clinical perspective what are some things that come to mind for you that you think people should be able to recognize so I would say first I'm concerned that's the first thing that comes to mind and the reason in which I'm concerned is is because each individual enters this particular workspace with their own belief system of self right and so if you believe that you're okay then you will go around and function and operate as though you are okay until as Jeff indicated you're triggered right and then you have an immediate trauma response in that moment so the lack of insight and understanding of whether or not you have incurred a measure of harm right to self emotionally or psychologically is setting up all of our police officers for failure right and so we see these incidents taking place for instance right all of what we see on the media of homicides that's happening right within the community with police and others we don't understand that these are human beings that are untreated right we put the police in a position to to assess whether or not the community is treated or not right whether or not they're having mental health concerns and whether or not they need to be right taken to the hospital but there is nothing in reverse so it again is leaving our police right with responding in and out of trauma right from fight to flight right to potentially freezing and that could bring about harm for them as well as the community at large um when you were speaking days are you know my mind went to self-care right and understanding that self-care is in the moment it's not waiting for vacation time right it's trying to figure out how can I actually regulate myself and my emotions in the moment and that is something I believe a skill set that needs to be taught um and acknowledged within the organization and not for them to have to identify outside on their own because I don't believe they'll do it or many won't and when you say you don't believe that they will do it and but you started off by saying it has a lot to do with sense of self and people not maybe not even recognizing what they need um a lot of times people talk about stigma or mental health and I'm wondering if we talk about how people view themselves if they'll do it themselves what what are some things that we as that mental health professionals need to be mindful of in the sense of the police I guess I need a bit I got really excited so I'm thinking about where you you said well if they don't think they need the help then it's really not likely that they'll be that they'll reach out for the help and so I think that's something for all of us in different roles to consider but specifically as a mental health professional if we know that officers may not be aware self-aware of what they need what do you recommend for clinicians to to do because that's a very different person than someone who is saying yes I have a mental health need and I want to come to you and I'm recognizing that this is a challenge that's a very different interaction so what would you what recommendations would you have for mental health professionals in and needing the needs of law enforcement officers so I would say get to know right the various departments in your area um I have reached out to various departments within um washtenaw county to work along with them to assist their officers in a measure of healing um one particular department and I won't go into right that department's name but one particular department um actually has bought into this notion that they now understand that the mind controls the body and that yes it's beautiful and that with that right they understand that some of the diseases that they are seeing manifest within their body is actually from them not caring from for their mental health and so one of the suggestions that we have been doing actually together um after showing this this documentary called love is the answer it was walking while black love is the answer and it really just started to get some wheels turning um around this how can we get this community engagement and walk side by side by one another without being explosive and so in our conversation we worked it out where look if he identifies that there's someone that is struggling that is an officer on the force then we are going to make certain that x amount of sessions are being rendered so I do believe that that clinicians at large need to get to know right the departments in their purview and see how they can extend themselves to best aid our our officers and when that is done I believe that the community engagement part can then take place absent that will be spinning our wheels okay so thank you so much for sharing that there but that after reaching out to some of these agencies that the management there has been open to having mental health be a ongoing conversation and increasing the ability to access it so Alicia and Jeff what do you all think about from from your side when you think about um what Leah's saying about oh yeah the the mind impacts the body and all of those things oh we're all connected and what are these what do you think how much do you think the typical officer knows can I go you can okay um so I think the typical officers is very mindful of what is going on with them where where the breakdown is in that for me as an officer to seek mental health assistance I put myself in a in a much more unique situation than the general public does um in that if I come in and say I'm suffering and I will share this twice during the course of my career I walked in and said I can't do this um one was in roughly 2000 and five six or seven just in that time frame um and I had been on on the on the force about 15 years at that point and I took some time to myself what that entailed was basically putting myself out there where people were going to look at me like this person's not quite right some other things happened I wasn't allowed to work any longer so you took my job away from me although I burned my sick time and I burned my vacation time in order for me to get healthy but the reason I was unhealthy was because of the amount of trauma that I endured over the course of my career so you've now taken it you put it back on me to become healthy for something that the career caused that's that's a big um a big hurdle to to cross first you have to be able to say hey I have a problem in a super alpha um area where you're putting your career and your um your livelihood in jeopardy and then the way it's handled from from my viewpoint from management is this is great you can go see the department psychologist and there's a very key term there department that psychologist is not my doctor they are not there for my well-being and hear me and to help me become better and to deal with the traumas of the job they're there to tell the department what their best interest in my mental health is I can a either go to work or b I need to continue to stay off of work and if I'm staying off of work that is killing my sick time it's killing my vacation time and at some point when the paycheck is not going to come in any longer you can bet your bottom dollar that I can walk in any psychology office in the state of Michigan and go you know I'm perfectly fine and give them every answer they need for me to go back to work in the in the in to make the money that I need to support my family and myself where we don't what doesn't happen is is we don't get healthy we just meet the minimum needs to go back to work to be able to take care of ourselves and that that's like the biggest issue right in the forefront getting to know a doctor a psychologist a psychiatrist a social worker who you can trust is absolutely imperative for police officers if they don't trust the person that they're speaking to they are not going to open up to what the problems that they're dealing with are and therefore it's just going to be that vicious cycle again they'll say everything they need to do to get back to work and then they still won't be healed again twice in my career the second time was roughly six months before I retired and I walked in and said I can't do this any longer so um sorry Alicia do you fire away now go ahead we're having a conversation because I was definitely going to add to you what what your thoughts were about that and I want to lift up for everyone I just said it took 15 years to say I can't do it and that's one thing but I also am wondering if you have thoughts about whatever you were going to say but he also mentioned needing to have a mental health professional that you trust so yeah go ahead I just wanted to validate what Jeff was saying right one of the officers that I do now have a standing relationship with um indicated that the desire is for the culture to shift right and he had worked in various um you know departments and it was for the first time he said I really feel like they care about me no one has ever asked me how I am doing really to the point that they would be willing to connect me to a mental health professional and not just like Jeff is saying right the psychologist or the psychiatrist um so that they could just kind of like go ahead and and man up again or whatever it may be that's exactly yeah yeah so I just really wanted to validate what you were saying Jeff and and honor that space because I'm hearing that from multiple individuals that are officers yeah and Alicia started often in her introduction by saying that just the history of the structures and systems of law enforcement it was never designed to support the actual people who are doing the job and so Alicia what what do you have to add to some of this dialogue too yeah I just um you know I definitely agree with what's being said and you know in doing the job you know when I left to go back to grad school and I left road patrol I just remember feeling like a weight lifted off my shoulders in a lot of ways um I a I could actually sleep um you know a lot better I mean I still have trouble sleeping but it's much better than it was um and I'm not in such a militaristic environment where I often felt like I was just a body and not a human being and I feel like that comes from the bureaucracy and the militaristic structure um in the systems right and um and thinking about um something else I just wanted to add about mental health a lot of the times too you know like your partner in your patrol car becomes sort of like a informal counselor or therapist you you talk with them you can debrief after a call um and something that I thought about a lot with the the pandemic is deputies and officers were no longer allowed to double and and to have a partner for a limited time because of COVID and so you think about the more isolated you are in the profession um something I noticed about my own mental health is it seems like the more connected I was with the community I served and especially being from the community the better my mental health would get and so when I was working in a um a community engagement role I noticed I started feeling a lot happier and it was because I was doing things that were very positive and I got the opportunity to not just you know respond to people in crisis 24-7 but to take a break and to really I mean there was a lot of uh there were still things that happened that were hard for me to deal with particularly some kids I mentored um being killed um and that's what ended up me leaving and going back to grad school but I think that even having that break um is so important and I wish that more administrations and managers would would value that um and as we think about policies um and you know I would hang out with social workers a lot when I was doing the community engagement role and they would say oh after shift we all debrief and we all check in and we talk about our feelings and we're not doing that law enforcement we're out the door right we're not we're not sitting around afterwards like hey man are you okay you know um it's very much I mean I don't know if it's the the hyper masculine environment I don't know what it is but it's definitely like a tough up you know hold in your feelings don't talk about it kind of mentality. Alicia when you bring that up about social workers it actually is a part of our code of ethics to do that that was why the question about the policies and what are their policies in place that kind of create a culture that if you don't do it it's kind of required on the other end so what that might be able to look like um Leah you're Alicia and Jeff talking about just the stressors again and then Alicia brought up this isolation and a community connection and it made me think about sometimes people say oh yeah that's kind of common sense but there is actually some clinical we have some clinical understanding on what it does to an individual when they are going through these types of experiences and being isolated and I'm wondering if you could share a little bit about that for people who are watching. I would just simply say that right we are created as social beings right and so for us to be in isolation we are left sometimes with our thoughts and we don't necessarily have clarity on what it is that we have that's ruminating and and we're rehearsing over and over again in our in our minds and so I think that it is vastly important to build community for support whether it be a peer support that you could have to be able to talk with as as Alicia was stating you have your peer writing along with you right and not necessarily would they have all of the answers for you but just for you to be able to articulate your thoughts and your feelings in that moment at least releases some of that right emotional vow for you where you're not just kind of holding and retaining all of that at one time so I would say definitely as you're saying Dacia with social work we have supervision that is required of us where we need to come together and we need to talk and bounce certain things off of one another for the sake of clarity as well as for our own healing so we have therapy for the therapist during those consults right and I you know I just kind of believe that that would be something that would be extremely beneficial for police officers to infuse within their policies in their their departments so Jeff and Alicia you you share that there's not that there's not a culture or a specific policy that is standardized to say this is the way we're going to operate um so if you were able to say hey we have this idea for a policy that needs to be incorporated across all agencies that are doing law enforcement if you're an accredited agency there should be a basic policy around behavior health of the of the staff there and the personnel um what would you what would you hope that policy would say and and displace it all so it's up to that just comes to mind uh is the not allowing officers to work when they haven't slept like that's a big one for me because I know officers that have crashed their cars I know officers that um I mean we know sleep deprivation is similar to having a BAC of alcohol uh 0.08 and so you know when you're driving around sleep deprived with a gun like that's a hazard in my opinion and I feel like we don't have policies in place to protect officers from um being from not being forced to work when they haven't had sleep and so there are some policies like you can't get forced um for eight hours uh in between shifts but then if an officer drives an hour and a half home or an officer has to get up for court in two hours and then go back into work I think it it really uh there needs to be a way to ask the officers have you gotten enough sleep to work and if you haven't then figuring out a way to make sure that they're not out there driving around because in my opinion that's one of the like number one things that I think would be um really important to focus on and I don't know if Jeff if you want to add so you would say having a policy around sleep specifically and what their state is then and Jeff do you have a one basic policy that you think should be implemented I'm not so sure it's a policy but it's the really take a good hard look at our profession and the way that we view the officers who are in crisis um and allow them to be able to come forward without any potential repercussions and get the help that they need those sleep that sleep deprivation that Alicia talks about I've been retired for six years um I was last night was a weird night I was up and down quite a bit um but on a regular night I'm out of bed three to four times or awake three to four times a night for over a half hour at a shot um some of it stuff's creeping back from the job some of it's you know stress with the current job I have so there's a little bit of both of those things but sleep is sleep is definitely important but I think having the ability to get the help that the that the officer needs would definitely push their ability to get that sleep do the other things that they need to do um and I I'm an honest I honestly believe that the better the officer's mental health is the better their interaction with the community is the better their interaction with the community is the better the stronger those relationships become and some of the stuff that we current that's currently being played out in the media would really die down um it's a it's a small spark that we fanned into a brush fire that's building into a forest fire and a lot of it still has to do with that ability to gain trust and part of that has to do with the officer being able to be healthy at the end of the day that's really helpful and I think one of our viewer talks about how now with more training around crisis intervention and co-responses it is creating ripples of people trying to recognize this issue and in some of those trainings trauma-informed policing is described as not only being able to recognize trauma in the community or policing but also being able to recognize trauma yourself we're going to switch to think about the patient kind of client experience but before we do that I wonder Leah you mentioned that there are some agencies that have been willing to partner with behavioral health professionals in order to deliver services in a in a different way that's not like oh we're going to have you evaluate it to see if you're fit for duty but more this is something we want to support to you um to offer to support you I am wondering we think about policy and mental health policy as well around diagnoses and I've just mentioned that sometimes opening the door if you have to get a diagnosis to have your insurance cover your treatment depending on what that diagnosis is there can be some negative ramifications with that so have you and that agency or have you ever been able to talk about making it so people can have more of a barrier free experience without needing a a qualifying diagnosis to receive mental health services yeah that's exactly how it's run so it isn't a you know go to your healthcare provider sort of scenario right it is having someone that is planted within the department that's just there to assist right so if there's a difficult day let's say that um you just made a run and you've experienced the most traumatic thing ever you could come back to the office and you would have someone that you could actually talk to download this right traumatic experience and then be able to kind of collect yourself and go along either with your day or if you need to be tapped out I like to use that term right at least two taps tap you out and then you're able to kind of go home to kind of get the care that you need right as best as can and so yeah there there is funding that is being set aside and allocated for those services for the trusted behavioral therapist at the time so yeah it's it's a really progressive sort of look at this because it's not putting the onus on the officer again to go out and seek out the assistance that they need but the assistance is present right for them to go to when they know that they they've had a difficult day so by being able to do that that's one way to reduce what I'm hearing is that that's one day to reduce stigma because it doesn't mean you have to have a diagnosis it doesn't mean you have to take off a ongoing amount of time at work but it's normalizing being able to talk about thoughts and feelings definitely so Jeff said that if we can support officers and being healthy that helps the interactions with the community and and it's kind of a revolving support but when people have clients at this moment there are still a lot of people in the community that have some very negative interactions with law enforcement officers that can be traumatizing for them so what do you say Leah from a clinical perspective what can people do to support their patients and clients who have had that very difficult experience with law enforcement to kind of navigate in their treatment so I would first say validate the experience of their client right because a lot of times we lead with our own particular biases for and or against a particular system and that could impose harm right on the fact that you're not validating what they said we know in trauma when one is giving a narrative that narrative does not have to be rooted and grounded in fact right it simply has to be what the person said it was so in honoring your patient by simply saying yes I validate your experience let's look at joining with them to see how best they could remedy whatever that encounter is and as advocates we have the opportunity to reach out to those officers and say hey can we have a conversation right can we come together we look at restorative justice practices and we only want to implement them in school systems why can't we implement the same thing within the community with the police and right the citizens those same sorts of practices can be done there and I think as clinicians we can push the envelope a bit further with that even if that department doesn't necessarily want to each officer has the ability to say yay or nay right and I believe that this is teaching empathy right where empathy is perceived to have been lost with the the department thank you so much Leah for adding that resource I'm sorry Jeff go ahead no no just to to talk about empathy I use this as a way to explain it when I retired my empathy tank was overdrawn and it's it's very easy in our job to have to to to empty that tank and not just empty it but we went to somebody else's tank and borrowed some of theirs too and um six years it's taken my empathy tank almost six years to get back to where I feel like for the most part when somebody says something to me I can fully embrace what they're saying and then at least as Leah said validate it to the point where they understand that I'm curing them it doesn't mean I have to agree but there's a point where we don't there there isn't a empathy station where we can just go plug in and fill that tank back up it's and when it's constantly pulled away from you it really I think that's part of what causes um officers problems is that they really realize at some point I'm not the person I was five years ago 10 years ago 15 years ago and you look back and you're like what happened to that person and you're like you're trying to get back to that point but every time you do it you feel like you're pulled the opposite direction so I think exactly what you said it it it works both ways for me we have to understand as officers what's going on in our community and have that empathy the big thing um for me has been over the last year is to really try to meet the community and let them know that your officers are also human beings and they have a lot of the same issues in their personal lives that you as a community member do and that if we can understand that both sides have those issues that we again can kind of meet in the middle it humanizes everybody at the at that point where they can say I understand where you're coming from and I get I I don't agree with what you did or how you said it or anything else but I understand how you got there because I've been there before um so I'm sorry no you don't know I think that I'm trying to figure out why was that okay it's not going right here all right so Jeff when you bring that up it's like those are some of the things that you know people might know about um policing that but just don't keep it in the forefront of their mind that oh police are humans their bodies and minds were very similar to us but you brought up something about the fact that people often see themselves differently after they've been on a force for some period of time and and don't know when they lost that who they were and so Alicia another to add on to that people are asking what else should the public know about policing beyond the power relationships because they said that's already very obvious so you mentioned like it's not what we see on tv so what other things so Jeff brought up the understanding that all enforcement officers are people too often coming in with the history of trauma already Alicia what else would you say would be some things that people should know I think something to be aware of is a lot of officers when they start they're very young and like whether what department they're at kind of makes them who they are right and so like I started policing when I was 21 um and I grew I was still like a child in a lot of ways right you're 21 you know the studies have shown even the brain's not fully developed now till 25 so you have a lot of younger people coming into policing um and I think that one of the um the you know going back to like the way that police are trained and how problematic my a lot of my beef of uh regarding the system comes from you know looking back now and thinking about how I was kind of taught to fear people and it was very much um this like us first them mindset that I think makes the mental health even worse and at some point in my career I said you know the heck with it you know this is my community and for me it's not there's no divide because I live here I shop here like these are my family and friends and so I think that the more that we can start stomping that out and I think that you have to really look again at like how the system was created and and then think about how to build a system that's not gonna center um some of these philosophies inside it um I think that's really important but I also want to say I think about a quote I went to a wrongful um conviction summit uh a couple months back and someone at this summit said I would like God to take you back to when you first started your job because somewhere you got cold and that quote has sat with me since then and it just rings so true even the best intention people going into law enforcement over time the job like you see them change and it's it's sad it really is yeah if I could add Desha kind of piggybacking on what Jeff and Alicia said and integrating something you said as well back to this notion of empathy right and being cold and callous right I believe that that's a protective mechanism that the human right develops unconsciously right because they too are fearful Jeff said early on he was taught you might not come home right to have that language shared to you very early on right is already infusing a measure of fear and what does the human body do when fear sets in it immediately right with an autonomic response clicks in and it tries to protect and preserve itself so if you're going and leading into a profession from that vein then we see why there's a lot of right incidents that are taking place and so that is even right a bit more convoluted to the space of history right what in your history individually were you taught to be afraid up so if there are human bodies that right are fearful one another let's say based on the racial dynamic or construct then a white body next to a black body that is catastrophic in and of itself by one's perceived thought of that individual that they need to fear them so that is we have to kind of work on again what we're teaching from the youth right and then it looks at right the empathy piece one of the interventions that I used with one of the officers was something simple and what I had him do was go back and get some of the letters right and cards that he had received from some of the citizens that he had assisted over time and just read them and he sat there and cried like a baby like a baby because it touched his heart again and he wasn't just operating right as this robot that we kind of see right it brought him back to a space of humanity and so it is identifying certain interventions that can be crafted and brought into again the departmental space that just lets them remember who they are and to touch into the humanity of who they are so that they can go back out again and interface with the public from right a space of honor one to another then when that happens I believe that the community can then kind of bring down their guards when they see a lack of incidents is occur because now it's not of them against us right it is all us yeah when you bring that up you kind of touch on all different layers of how we all have to start really young to think about how do we perceive things and the things that you mentioned about fear I just want to highlight that you're saying this is automatic and it's what our bodies do automatically and then when you talked about the community and talking about the black body and the white body standing next to each other it made me think about how often even social work professionals might engage law enforcement to call on a person or just the general citizen because they're in fear they call up law enforcement and a lot of times law enforcement they they're like this why don't you call me for this this is not what I'm claiming to this job for that's Jeff and Alicia that's why I wanted to ask you all why did you come into this job because a lot of times people have been law enforcement officers from what I understand often come in because they want to serve and protect and then they often get in the middle of interpersonal conflicts from say it's a person who feels threatened by me for no reason and then they're calling law enforcement and not me and law enforcement have this interaction so we have to also I think it makes me think about how all of us have to be much more intentional about being aware of what we're doing with our fear responses because a lot of people their immediate reaction when they feel afraid or feel like they want someone to step in is to call law enforcement and that doesn't work if we want to create healing in our community I would agree really quickly I'm working on a project with Washington State University right now where we are looking at implicit bias and how the dispatcher if they show bias in the middle if you have bias on the front end from your caller then there's some bias that's handled by the dispatcher and then obviously the officer is going to be biased to some level themselves you can stack that bias and it lands on the police officer's shoulders and they don't even know that they were forced into a bias type situation where there maybe their personal bias would have never even played into it had all the other things been done correctly in front of them and then again the same thing happens with the citizen interaction they've had some biases that they bring to the table and now all this stuff it's not just one layer it's multiple layers that land immediately and some of that again goes back to what we started to talk about is mental health and part of being um healthy mentally is understanding what's going on with you and being able to see it and adjust to it and find the things that help you fine tune those issues so that you can be a productive member of society no matter what your job at the end of the day is thanks chef I think that that helps some things up right when we're coming up to this hour and I'm hearing everyone just to summarize because I want to make sure we got everything out and if there's something you would add that I'm hearing that the way that we can address these things is to create a culture amongst management at every agency that supports mental health behavioral health awareness self-care also having policies in place that would support people being able to access behavioral health services without any negative ramifications towards them that will make them feel like they're going to lose their livelihood and then having opportunities to support individuals at all different parts of our community thinking about the apart in the restorative justice practices as and that might be another policy to incorporate instead of you know punitive punitive how can we think about restorative practices would that also help officers see crime in a different way you don't know so it sounds like those are some of the things that I'm taking away what what can people do to address some of these concerns and having people embed it and now Jeff had to throw in the dispatch part so they make sure that you talk to them about do they have that counter in there for the dispatchers because their biases are going to come up really fast if they're not getting mental health services as well so I just want to thank everyone for watching we had the one hour hour one hour go so fast we need to have a part two three four something so thank you all for watching thank you all panelists for being able to come and bring your experiences and all of your training and knowledge and sharing that with us thank you thank you thank you for having me


You have this reputation now in your own district and nationally as the guy who's willing to make the meme or you know do make take the unpopular vote. And I think that one of the prime examples of that is back in the the depths of coven March 2020. Everyone was pushing for this $2.2 trillion COVID relief bill, including the President of the United States. And it was Representative Thomas Massey who was saying if we're going to have a $2 million, $2 trillion vote here, let's follow the Constitution and have everyone come back to DC and actually do it in person. And for that, going back to Twitter, the, you know, now X the kind of locus of political discourse, President Trump's response to that was look like looks like a third rate grandstander named Representative Thomas Massey, a congressman from unfortunately a truly great state Kentucky wants to vote against the new Save Our Workers bill in Congress. He just wants the publicity. He can't stop it. He goes on to say that, you know, the Republicans should win the House but they should kick out Thomas Massey.  Oh, well, I'll have to write a book someday, but that those tweets happened about 60 seconds after a phone call ended between me and President Trump, where he basically burned my ear off screaming at me for probably three minutes and said he was coming at me. He was going to take me down. And that's a sobering proposition when you're, you've got a primary election eight weeks away. You've been trying to keep the president out of your race. The person running against you says you don't support the president enough. And the president had 95% approval rating among the primary voters who were going to vote in my election. But I just stood strong. I said, listen, if, if truckers and nurses and grocery store workers are showing up for work, then Congress should show up for work too. And that was, I think, an unassailable message because ultimately I was just trying to get people on record. The reason I was trying to get people on record is I knew this was one of the worst votes in history and nobody was going to be accountable for it. And so I'm, you know, here we are three years later, every bad thing that I said would happen as a result of doing that has happened. And even my colleagues here in Congress, a lot of them admit to me that they were wrong about that. They won't say it too loudly unless anybody hear it. And I got 81% in that primary, you know, with Trump screaming at me and tweeting at me and whatnot. By the way, the reporters came up to me as I walked out of the chamber that day and said, your own president just called you a third-rate grandstander. What do you have to say? And they said I was deeply insulted. I'm at least second-rate. And they didn't have to come back to that. But be careful. If you ask the ex-chatbot or whatever, you know, the AI that Elon Musk has on ex, if you ask it to roast me, it will say that I, you know, like a washed up high school quarterback. I like to talk about that one event back on March 27, 2020, too much.  So you, if ex is listening, if Grock is listening, I wanted to know that you, Zach brought it up, not me. Yes. How much COVID policy remorse is there among your colleagues in Congress? Not enough. Not nearly enough. There should be the policy isn't just the spending, the vaccine mandates, the shutting down of our economy, the compulsory masking, the way people were treated like cattle. There should be far more remorse. But frankly, that's a reflection of the voters as well. Most people have moved on. Even a year ago, most people have moved, had moved on, and it wasn't in the top five issues of what people care about in any congressional district. You can't campaign on, well, I tried to save you during COVID. I mean, look at Ron DeSantis, that was part of his signature issue. And by being the, you know, different governors responded differently, but he most famously opposed a lot of this COVID nonsense after it became obvious what we were dealing with. And he rode that wave and he was polling better than Trump. But I think people have moved on and they've got other issues to think about now. And that's, you know, people have just moved on and so have my colleagues and I think it's really unfortunate. And I wish that I had been able to get that recorded vote that day. We'd have a lot more people who wouldn't be back here in Congress perpetrating bad ideas like FISA. So I have one last question and then we'll wrap up because I know you have other stuff to get to. You're a busy man. But on that topic, you know, one of the things that the CARES Act and that the pandemic stimulus spending led to, you know, at least as far as I can tell is inflation, right? Like that's something that's on American voters minds. Do you see any signs and also you were elected during sort of the era of the Tea Party, you know, reigning in government spending a sense of what we care about our fiscal health. So as a result, we can't just have the money printer constantly print money forevermore. We have to be prudent because the bill always comes to do. Do you think that that message has any hopes of having any sort of revival in the coming years, especially given the runaway inflation that we've seen? Or do you think it's just a totally lost cause and we're all screwed? I mean, it's not a 95% probability to that last proposition, but I'm here in the 5% chance that we can save it.  I think what's starting to curb the appetite for spending and bring some realism into the discussion is the only thing that was ever going to curb our appetite for spending. And that is our creditors are starting to balk. The rates at which the government can borrow money now aren't what we want them to be. When we go out to do an auction or a sale for treasuries or bonds, what we're finding is the appetite isn't there even at 4.5%. To get guaranteed 4.5% return on your money from the government backed by the US military, that's not enough to loan that money to the government. They want 5%. That's an indicator that when the private sector and the other countries who the sovereign funds who usually have the appetite for our debt, when they're losing their appetite, that's a sign that things are going south and not to promote it too much because Grock roasts me for this too. But I wear this debt clock that I built in Congress to remind people of it. And one side effect of me wearing this is I've noticed that because it by the way it logs on the treasuries website once a day gets the debt to the penny. It would do it more frequently but they only publish it once a day. It's a consequence of wearing this and looking at it every day. One thing I've noticed is the rate at which the debt is increasing is going up. So like for the math nerds that's the second derivative. And today the debt per second is set average over the last year is $78,000 a second. It's just I don't think people realize it feels like we're going over Niagara Falls right now to me. I'll see you next week.


You're absolutely right and I'm even happier that I have two medalists with me. The high jump for under 20 girls, the winner Rashida Samuels, 1.78 meters. And second place going to Dejan Air Bruce, 1.76. They were very close apart. It was a good competition between the two girls. And let me ask you, firstly, before we talk about the competition, the camaraderie between you two is admirable. Yes, sir. Yeah, tell me about that. How was that friendship between the two of you? Well, we have our hopes and downs, but we know to fix things. In competition, though, it must be challenging to know that one of you must win, the other must come second. Dejan Air, you on this occasion, you were leading right down to Rashida's cleared 1.78.  Yes, I was. I feel like I could have done better. Yeah, but you definitely are still happy that you were able to achieve a medal. Let me ask you, Rashida, though, 1.78 meters. You did try 1.80. Are you disappointed that you couldn't clear that? Yes, sir. I'm a bit disappointed, but I still got the goal, so I'm super grateful. If you assess your performance here today, how would you rate it? I give it 8 out of 10. Yeah, and you have any more events coming up later? Well, no, you did say that you're going to rest now. And Jamaica, 1-2 for you, too. How do you feel about bringing home gold and silver for your country? Sir, we feel very good, because we know we could, and we did just that. And how about you, Dejan Air? How do you feel about bringing silver? It's very great, but I was a little bit disappointed because I know I could clear the 1.78, but I have to give God thanks in the silver medal. Tell me a little bit about your coach, David Riley. How good of a coach is he? Sir, he's a great coach, actually. He knows what he's doing, and we just listen to what he says. Congratulations to both of you. Thank you, sir. Let's head back up now to Terry and Ricardo.


Screen sharing is an essential tool anyone using Zoom should use. This video will show you how to do just that. Rod here. Welcome to Burn to Learn. Let's get started. Let's consider three simple steps. Step one, locating the share screen button. Step two, selecting what to share. And step three, how to stop sharing the screen. To get started, take a second to subscribe to our channel by clicking here. And give us a like by clicking here. And check out our techie t-shirts by clicking on the link in the description below. Step one, locating the share screen button. Once you're on a call, hover your mouse at the bottom of the screen to reveal the taskbar. The taskbar has many features including Unmute and Mute. Starting video, security, participants, chat and share screen. Click on the green share screen button here. Step two, selecting what to share. When you click the green share screen button, you'll be in the basic tab of the share screen options window. In this tab, you can select which screen you would like to share if you're connected to multiple monitors or what window you want to share. There is also an advanced setting tab for these specific sharing options. PowerPoint as background, targeting a portion of a screen, music or computer sound only, and content from a second camera. And finally, there is a files tab that lets you choose from different online storage programs like Google Drive or OneDrive. You should check out our Google Drive and OneDrive videos. Once you've selected the screen you want to share, click the share button in the bottom right corner of the window here. When you click on it, your screen will be visible to everyone on the call. Step three, stop sharing screen.  To stop sharing your screen, click the red stop share button here. And that's it. Easy, right? Now that you know how to share your screen, let other people know by sharing this video. Be sure to leave a like if you enjoyed the video. Subscribe to our channel for more awesome content. And please leave a comment down below. We would love to hear your thoughts. This has been Rod from Burn to Learn. Thanks for watching.


planting angel eggs on a dying world, planting angel eggs on a dying world at the feet of billboards in the clear-cut wastelands, by the rivers of tears from Yemeni mothers, under highway overpasses where defective gear-turners sleep, shambling from crater to crater on tree stump legs, wailing whale songs and praying to unprofitable gods, planting them in the ashes whispering, may there be kindness, may there be seeing, may there be artist lovers who are each other's muse, dancing a doomed dance, a dance of holy futility, a dance of madmen, a dance of heretics, a dance of censored saints of banished buddhas, singing a song of hopeless hope, irrational hope, unscientific hope, the hope of lovers and lunatics, a lunatics song sung to the moon. Dance with us, gentle stranger. Through this world of Disney deforestation and unexplored abysses, with unauthorized choreography and wonder-mented eyes, let us hold the line against the empire of earth-eaters, for no other reason than that where the only ones left who are crazy enough to try. There may be a hatching yet, gentle stranger. Humanity is not broken. Any more than an egg is a broken bird.