text:
MWI: Questions, part 3
This is the third part of a series examining the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (the MWI of QM). The popularity of the MWI in books, blogs, and science videos, especially among the science-minded, tends to keep in present in some corner of my mind. Blog posts are a way to shoo it out.
The first part introduced the topic and talked about cats. The second part discussed the Schrödinger equation, wavefunctions, decoherence, and the question of how multiple instances of matter can coincide. That question, to me, is a central issue I have with MWI.
This time I dig into quantum superposition and touch on a few other topics.
I think understanding quantum superposition is one key to unlocking quantum mechanics. Others are entanglement, decoherence, and interference. (The last two are relevant here and discussed, but I'll leave entanglement for other posts.)
What does it mean for a (quantum) system to be in superposition? I've shown the usual bra-ket formula many times:
Where the coefficients, c, are complex numbers, and |0〉 and |1〉 are two quantum states superposed to create quantum state Ψ (psi). Mathematically, we treat the coefficients as probability amplitudes for finding the system in the respective state should we measure it on the {|0〉,|1〉} basis — a measurement that always results in either |0〉 or |1〉.
I mentioned last time that experimenters have placed larger and larger physical systems into superposition. It's often done with beams of atoms or molecules sent through fine gratings in experiments similar to the two-slit one with light or electrons. In fact the progression from photons to electrons to atoms to molecules to viruses demonstrates the wave-like nature of physical objects (which, of course, photons always were).
Experimental quantum physicist Aaron O'Connell and his co-workers put a physical micro-beam ("one micron thick and 40 microns long" — trillions of atoms) into superposition. The beam acted like a tiny tuning fork; it would vibrate at a resonant frequency if voltage was applied. They first demonstrated a "quanta" of vibration (a phonon) and that the resonator could also be in a non-vibrating state. Then they created a superposition of the non-vibrating and single-phonon vibration states.
Pretty impressive. (See this Scientific American article or this link to the paper.)
The incredibly difficult to achieve conditions for superposing large objects supports the idea that the quantum domain is different from the classical domain. Why and how are open questions, but we see over and over the need for environmental isolation, extremely low temperatures, and a vacuum, to get quantum effects.
This supports my sense that wavefunctions aren't meaningful for classical objects. They may well exist in the abstract sense, but as discussed previously I question how meaningful they can be.
Regardless, it clearly demonstrates the challenge of superposing large objects. Specifically it seems to say superposition is a quantum effect. And yet MWI requires that entire universes be in superposition. Or at the very least, boxes with cats in them. This is part of what drives the MWI to insist everything is quantum — superposition doesn't apply to classical objects.
Which is not to say there aren't forms of classical superposition. The same note played on a guitar or piano or saxophone sounds different because of superposed harmonics (overtones) to the base note. These depend on the physical structure of the instrument, so the notes, despite the same base pitch, sound very different.
(They also have different loudness dynamics, but even if that could be ignored the notes would be clearly identifiable.)
The complex wave surface of any large body of water is a superposition of all the waves sources that contribute.
In fact, note that, generally speaking, classical superposition always involves wave mechanics of some kind. (At least any example I can think of does.) Given the wave-like nature of quantum mechanics, superposition is a nature feature.
There is perhaps a slight difference in that classical superpositions are direct sums of the values of contributing parts. In a quantum superposition the position of the wavefunction vector reflects the contributions. We use Fourier analysis to tease out classical contributors and inner products with eigenvectors to tease out quantum sub-states.
In any event, we have, on the one hand, the superposition of the Schrödinger equation, which really amounts to saying: either this or that state with this or that probability. The mathematical superposition here isn't mysterious.
Physical superposition seems to come in clear wave-like forms, but might have more mysterious instances (such as vibrating beams). The wave-like form doesn't seem that mysterious other than matter acting wave-like. (With individual particles that seems almost normal to me.) Vibrating beams might turn out to be based on wave behavior, too.
Superposition seems a natural feature of any system governed by wave mechanics, and its presence in quantum mechanics may supervene entirely on the wave-like nature of QM.
My bottom line, superposition as we know it doesn't seem up to the task of supporting superposed cats (let alone universes).
Consider the paradox in the Wigner's Friend scenario. It comes from Wigner's belief he can model his friend's lab as a superposition of his friend having measured |0〉 or |1〉. If we deny the wavefunction is meaningful for the friend or the lab, then the paradox vanishes, because Wigner has an incorrect belief.
Thinking about it from the friend's point of view, aren't we all in a supposed superposition of states from the point of view of distant friends? I have a sister in California. If I take Wigner on faith, from her point of view, I'm in a superposition of all the possible states I could be in (including being abducted by aliens).
Obviously from my point of view, my state is collapsed into whatever I'm actually doing, but under the MWI my sister's point of view would be correct because all those versions of me actually exist. She just doesn't know which branch of reality she's in.
Or (and this is my vote), wavefunctions aren't meaningful for classical objects. Cats, let alone scientists or friends (let alone anything bigger), because they are constantly observed by self and environment, are never in superposition.
The idea behind MWI is that observing a quantum system that's in superposition causes a superposition of the observing system. (Expanding that to Wigner, his knowledge an experiment is being performed in the lab supposedly puts the whole lab into superposition according to Wigner.)
In the classical beam-splitter, the device supposedly enters a superposition in which both detectors trigger. If the device has, say, red and green lights to signal which detector fired, there is a superposition of both lighting up. That leads to a superposition of the lab and scientist seeing green photons from the green light or red ones from the red one. Some believe the superposition expands limited to the speed of light, others believe an entire universe effectively springs into being. Or, per the discussion of cats, there were two identical universes all along, and they diverged into one where red lights and one where green lights.
Or,… MWI is false, and none of this is true. As appears to our senses and instruments, the particle is detected in only one place and the wavefunction collapses (as mysterious as that might currently be). To paraphrase Picard, there is only one light.
One issue here is what's known as the preferred basis problem. The usual version of it asks why reality is observed to have definite position when there is also an observation basis for momentum in which position would be indefinite. What chooses the position basis for our perception of reality?
It's gotten me to wondering why we perceive "particles" — which represent both observation and wavefunction collapse. Any detected particle represents a position measurement, another instance of reality apparently picking a basis.
[FWIW, I think of "particles" as fundamentally wave-like but with localized point-like interactions with other "particles" — the photoelectric effect is a good example. Photons are absorbed by electrons.]
Proponents of MWI use decoherence (that magic word again) to resolve the preferred basis problem, but their efforts seem open to dispute.
There is another issue I think of as somewhat related. A wavefunction describes everything about a given system, and can provide a probability of any possible measurement of that system at any point in the future. For an isolated quantum system, this is doable and meaningful.
So, as I've pointed out before, a wavefunction for the cat experiment and lab needs to include all possible measurements, including blown fuses, power fails, car crashes, weather events, asteroids, and so on. The only way that's possible is to have a wavefunction for all of reality — or at least everything within the lab's past light cone. Since various light cones intersect, this implies only a universal wavefunction is up to the task of describing the lab.
The bonus is it also describes everything Wigner and everything else.
But how meaningful is a universal wavefunction that needs to describe the position and energy potentials for every particle in the universe? Remember that a wavefunction reduces all of that to a single vector, a single arrow moving around a Hilbert space with infinite dimensions. How meaningful can that single arrow be?
Now step back. In MWI that arrow not only has contributions from every particle in the universe, but from every particle in every universe. If a universal wavefunction isn't meaningful, how much worse is a reality wavefunction with bazillions of universes?
I haven't touched on probability in this series. I explored it in a post I wrote year, so I won't say much about it here. As with the preferred basis problem, probability is generally acknowledged as a challenge for MWI. Some believe it's as big an issue as the preferred basis problem. (Yet everyone seems fine with physical matter coinciding. I don't see that discussed much.)
At the very least, MWI confounds our usual notion of probability — that improbable events only happen rarely. In the MWI, improbable events always happen; what's rare is find oneself in an improbable branch (or superposition).
Supposedly the math works out either way (I try to avoid statistics and probability math), but one has to wonder about the astonishment of those in branches of reality where 64-bit random number generators turn out all-zeros or other highly structured (and thus highly improbable) pattern. Of course an RNG can do that, but the odds against are so high it's like entropy running backwards.
Or, one can just deny that MWI makes sense.
One thing I've wondered is how (and if) two-slit experiments apply to MWI. Physicist David Deutsch believes they demonstrate MWI, but this is disputed.
I don't see that the two-slit behavior has anything to do with MWI. To me, it's a real world example of superposition and/or wave-like behavior. The interference seems fully explained by QM (in some cases even by classical mechanics). I do not see how or why the particle needs different worlds to reach the screen. (On my TODO list is his book, The Fabric of Reality. I'd like to know what he says.)
Where I can see MWI applying is in where the particle ends up on the screen. That seems observationally a random quantum event, an apparent wavefunction collapse. One implication is that a branch exists for every possible location in the screen that could have received the particle.
Note that, if we just look at the final pattern, there might be no branching since individual particle locations don't matter, only the final pattern does. But we could amplify the screen, recording it with each particle as in the Merli-Missiroli-Pozzi experiment. If MWI is true, that would seem to require branching.
But I don't see how MWI applies to the interference itself.
Another reason I want to read Deutsch's book is his claim that MWI explains the power of quantum computing. I don't see that, either.
To me the power of QC comes simply from the power of qubits, which have two analog degrees of freedom compared to the single binary degree of ordinary bits. That expands the power of qubits exponentially both in having multiple degrees and in those degrees being analog. That creates a value field in comparison to the on-off of a bit.
I find the power of QC no more mysterious (outside the mysteries of QM) than I do that, per the above, guitars, pianos, and saxophones, all sound different. Very roughly speaking, the same sort of computation is occurring in both cases. Instruments "compute" how they sound by combining harmonics. Quantum computers compute through entanglement and state-changing operations.
No need for MWI that I can see.
It's sometimes claimed MWI doesn't have wavefunction collapse, but I'm not sure that's entirely true. Consider a simple spin measurement using a Stern-Gerlach device. MWI claims two versions of reality exist, one spin-up, one spin-down.
Okay, let's accept that premise. The particle's wavefunction before measuring was a superposition of any possible spin measurement we could make. That is, it can be expressed as a superposition of spins in any basis.
But after the measurement both realities see a collapsed wavefunction. In one branch, it's collapsed to spin-up, in the other to spin-down. Both branches can characterize the new state as a superposition of states in some other basis, but they would express it with opposite phases because certain operations on the superposition need to recover the known eigenstate.
The point is that both branches see the same "collapsed" wavefunction as in a standard interpretation. In either case, the wavefunction suddenly changes to a known eigenstate.
I've seen MWI proponents claim it's due to interactions with the device and environment, but doesn't that same logic apply to the standard interpretation? Interactions cause the wavefunction to change. Of course they do.
Bottom line, on the one hand an extravagant theory with a reality wavefunction with infinite universes superposed, physically coinciding, but not interacting because "decoherence," and little clarity on probability, how branches happen, or why reality has a basis for appearing as it does.
On the other hand an incomplete theory with a mysterious divide between quantum and classical (but we're working on it and making progress, and I think it's kind of a matter of time until we resolve it) and some big questions to answer about measurement.
Even on the premise that everything is quantum, MWI still fails for me because the classical world is singular. Quantum objects might superpose, but classical ones don't.
Reality is what has been observed, and the universe is always observing itself. The cat observes itself; the detector observes itself; the radioactive sample observes itself. We are obviously not in superposition to distant friends because we observe ourselves. So does the universe. It's always peeking in.
Stay singular, my friends! Go forth and spread beauty and light.
This entry was posted on Friday, July 9th, 2021 at 7:27 am and tagged with Many Worlds Interpretation, MWI, Schrödinger Equation, wave-function and posted in Physics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
« MWI: Questions, part 2
Friday Notes (Jul 16, 2021) »
14 responses to "MWI: Questions, part 3"
July 9th, 2021 at 9:17 am
This probably the last of the series, although I had intended to explore actual experiments in more detail. Another time, perhaps!
(I'll be dog-sitting my pal, Bentley, this weekend, so might not be online as much as usual.)
A very rich discussion. I wrote a long comment on your first MWI post but deleted it partly because I wanted to see the second and this third before I said anything. I think you've now touched on a lot of what I had to say, but hopefully you'll find the following worthwhile.
That earlier comment centered on the question of whether the world "branches" in the details of the math of QM, if we assert that there is only unitary evolution (which is the starting point for Everett's Relative State Interpretation, MWI, and other interpretations). I think there are no branches in the math, in which case RSI and MWI become apparently indistinguishable from a many worlds interpretation of classical probability (in which every possible world really exists but it's completely inaccessible to any other possible world and each is at all times slightly different from all the others; that's just one of several competing interpretations of probability in the philosophy literature.)
The RSI seems particularly clear that there is —for me, now— a definite history of recorded experimental results, which is not different from a definite classical history. For the future, saying that (1) knowing only the quantum state only tells us probabilities for what a future result will be is not different from saying (2) that knowing less than every detail of a classical state only tells us probabilities for what a future result will be (and, per our previous to-and-fro, knowing every detail, and being certain we've missed no details whatsoever, is tricky if there's noise at every scale). I think it may be this closeness to a classical model that makes RSI (and MWI, when it follows the mathematics, not the bombast of branching worlds) so attractive to people.
One thing that I've found it useful to focus on, which I think you don't as much, is the extent to which a quantum state is known or hypothesized. If a quantum state is confirmed by experiment to be a superposition and not a mixture then in that sense we can we say "here's a superposition" differently. To make that confirmation requires us to perform incompatible measurements (that is, on the idea of "incompatibility" in the quantum probability literature, measured probability distributions that do not admit a joint probability distribution), but I think that's only possible in practice if we perform incompatible measurements on different subensembles, which enters into a whole array of issues.
July 9th, 2021 at 10:47 am
"I think there are no branches in the math,…"
This is a huge question I have about MWI. I explored it a bit in the first post, and I'd really like to see a Schrödinger solution for a beam-splitter. In lectures I've seen animations of the wavefunction for a particle tunneling through (or scattering off) a barrier. The description of position has a single particle approaching the barrier, but then it describes two, one that scatters, one that tunnels.
So in this sense the math appears to "branch" but was that math always a superposition of two particles, or is the appearance of the second one created at the barrier? My math isn't yet up to the task of being able to figure that out.
"…that knowing less than every detail of a classical state only tells us probabilities for what a future result will be…"
Could be. The probabilities in QM come from inner products of vectors. Would a classical approach give the same results?
"One thing that I've found it useful to focus on, which I think you don't as much, is the extent to which a quantum state is known or hypothesized."
I'm not sure I followed this. Can you give me a concrete "for instance"?
About your first: I think I haven't included links here to the three posts I wrote last year on a website called The Quantum Daily, after AlgKoopman was published:
(1) https://thequantumdaily.com/2020/02/16/unifying-classical-physics-and-quantum-physics/
(2) https://thequantumdaily.com/2020/02/23/unifying-collapse-and-no-collapse-approaches-to-quantum-physics/
(3) https://thequantumdaily.com/2020/03/08/breaking-the-hold-of-bell-inequalities/.
In the second, I say this, about the branching or not:
"If there are no collapses, however, then there is another important property of measurement, both for classical mechanics and for quantum mechanics: when we repeat a measurement, we always get exactly the same measurement result. This has many consequences, but perhaps the most significant is for the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics: there can be many worlds, but there cannot be any branching.
Here's why: suppose that two worlds are different but they are both branches from the same, earlier world. If they are different, then there is at least one measurement that will give different measurement results. But that's impossible, because we could have performed the same measurement before the branching, in which case whatever measurement result would have been obtained then would have to be same as two different values.
Nonetheless, thinking classically —which, if we're alive to subtleties, we can now allow ourselves to do—, there can be an appearance of branching if the dynamics is chaotic. We might notice no difference between two worlds until the chaotic dynamics makes the difference suddenly conspicuous."
There's math to back this up, because we can compute the correlation coefficient for the results of doing the same measurement twice: it's 100%. This result holds without having to introduce collapse of the wave function at all, but it does require the measurement to have discrete results (which in practice all measurements do, as we discussed earlier). There are mathematical niceties enough involved for me to worry about making huge claims for this construction, however AFAIK that hurts both ways: MWI proponents have to worry about the same niceties.
About your second: if we work in Koopman's Hilbert space formalism for classical mechanics, then probabilities come from an inner product of vectors (or, as for QM, from a trace, for mixed states). it's that parallelism that makes Koopman a worthwhile testing ground for ideas about the similarities and differences between classical and quantum.
About your third: I think I have to go sideways to (try to) get at this. The main issue is perhaps whether we think The State (1) really exists as a thing whether we perform any measurements or not; or (2) represents what we've recorded about The World and what we expect to record in future. If it's the former, then what measurements we perform make no difference to the state, so my comment is irrelevant and forget it.
If it's the latter, then we can't say the state is a mixture or it's a superposition unless we perform experiments that show that it is one or the other. To show one way or another, we have to perform incompatible measurements because, putting it briefly, what most people would call "classical" measurements are always consistent with saying, "look, a mixture".
For completeness about things published about AlgKoopman, there was also https://news.yale.edu/2020/03/02/insights-outcomes-thermodynamics-and-algebra-everything (100 words!) and Annals of Physics selected AlgKoopman as a "highlighted article", so there was this, by a journalist, Rob Lea, https://www.journals.elsevier.com/annals-of-physics/highlighted-article/solving-the-quantum-conundrum-uniting-quantum-and-classical
I could never persuade any other journalist that AlgKoopman warranted an article in a popsci website or magazine (I did try, but I guess I'm too crazy, I'm too old, it's still too much work-in-progress, or for whatever reason no journalist bit.)
July 9th, 2021 at 7:44 pm
I read the three Quantum Daily articles. I confess I'm a little at sea; my background may not quite be up to fully understanding. I like that the third article has concrete info on a Bell's test. I need to read that again.
One thought I have about signal analysis is that the existence of a signal means a measurement of some kind was made to generate that signal, so any wavefunction collapse has already happened. I think that's why I have trouble embracing a signal analysis approach, because my interests lie in what generated that signal. And why. No question signal analysis is crucial — as I understand it, CERN is huge on that — but (rightly or wrongly) it feels like a different sector of science to me. It feels somehow after-the-fact. Could that be why science journalists aren't biting?
My question about the Schrödinger solution for beam-splitter… In lectures I've seen that solutions can include multiple terms. For instance the solution for a freely moving particle seems to contain terms for motion in both directions with coefficients that pick out one of them. So does a beam-splitter solution have terms for two particles (one that scatters, one that passes through), or do terms describing a single particle evolve such that the particle diverges to two probable locations? (I watched a series of MIT QM lectures and semi-sortof kept up. I'd like to watch them again now that I've learned a bit more. My ultimate goal is programming some of my own Schrödinger equation animations, but I'm starting to realize how long that road is. So much to learn!!)
Speaking of which, I need to understand more about "no collapse" theories. I'm still trying to completely understand how MWI is supposed to work without it (and I kind of suspect, per the post, it doesn't). I sometimes feel "collapse," like "decoherence," gets used in different ways, and I can't always keep up.
There's collapse of the Schrödinger equation, which some point to as a glaring problem with Copenhagen. I don't have a problem with it; I just see it as part of our not having figured out QM yet. Then there's what seems to happen physically when a quantum system interacts with another system. A silver atom's spin state changing due to a Stern-Gerlach device. That doesn't seem mysterious to me, either. (On some level, of course a strong magnetic field would affect the atom!)
Ugh, I'm getting lost in all the stuff I don't know but want to. I need to chew on this some more…
July 10th, 2021 at 7:47 am
For Gregor Weihs's experiment, I think the slides and what I say about them in the talk I gave at IQOQI in March this year, starting at 10:14, might also be helpful, https://youtu.be/1mfGZFkOvZ0?t=614. I can't remember linking to that here before? What comes before that segment might usefully set the scene for how I think about signal analysis, whereas what comes after tells a more mathematical story. The graphics are better, at least, and I think what I say about measurement incompatibility is clearer. I'll e-mail the slides PDF to you as well.
I agree that signal analysis definitely has its failings, and I can see that I might be emphasizing it too much, but my feeling is that thinking in terms of particles has its problems, not all of which are fixed by thinking in terms of wave/particle duality as causes of our records of experimental results. If we back out of those approaches, one way forward is to ask more carefully how signal analysis would justify using only such approaches, or at what points it suggests alternative approaches. I've been thinking in terms of events and patterns of events instead of in terms of particles as causes of those patterns for over 20 years, often having to translate back and forth into particle thinking, which I always found helpful. I think I've been finding that thinking in terms of signal analysis is even more helpful because it allows us to embed the signals into a wider world of a noisy field theory.
I don't go as far as Bell's famous article "Against Measurement", but I think it's worth not always thinking of experiments in terms of measurements and their results. For me that's because I don't always want to think of a "measurement" as a "measurement of a property of a particle/wave thingamagig", insofar as I think of any record of a signal, as an event timing or as a voltage at a particular time, or whatever, as affected by many aspects of the surroundings of the apparatus. If we get a little wild and woolly, every "measurement" is a "measurement of the universe as seen in the formal laboratory record of that signal", which has to somehow be made to sit well enough with less wild and woolly engineering.
I skipped the beam-splitter, above. I'll give it a try here, in quantum field theory terms: A laser conditions or modulates the state of the (quantized, noisy) electromagnetic field to be different from the vacuum state of the EM field in a particular way, changing the statistics of events in avalanche photodiodes (APDs), depending on where the APDs are placed. Now we can put different materials (and mirrors, lenses, half-wave plates, wave-guides, and all the paraphernalia of quantum optics) close to the output of the laser and see how the statistics of events in APDs in different locations change. It turns out that we can condition or modulate the noisy EM field (using what we call a beam-splitter but that we could perhaps also call a coincidence-creator), so that even though the events are still at random times (the noise), in accordance with some statistical distribution, there are nonetheless event coincidences (not all events are coincident, but many are! I think of this as "noise engineering", amplifying and minimizing noise in different places.) Even more than that, and considerably trickier, we can put other apparatus close to the APDs that condition or modulate the EM field so that Bell-CHSH-type inequalities are violated. Section 7.2.1 in AlgKoopman, and part of that talk at IQOQI, is about how I think we can and should pick apart how such correlations and violations evolve over time under different conditions.
Most of what I currently have to say about the relationship between collapse pictures and no-collapse pictures of QM is in the SleightOfHand paper. Although some people seem to be seeing it as significant, I've not yet had anyone ask me focused enough questions for me to move on very much. For me, that paper gives a formally mathematical enough relationship between collapse and no-collapse pictures for us to be considerably clearer about what RSI/MWI commits us to as a picture of QM, enough that I'm now mostly OK with RSI.
I've started watching your videos (in the order posted on your YT account — the IQOQI one is last but I'll get there). You might want to consider reshooting the one with the "up the nose" camera angle. Not a flattering look. 🙂
I think I found, in your slides, a key aspect of how we see things differently:
No to "the spin of the electron was ↑"
Yes to "the average signal level on signal line #71 was about 4.587 at about time 63.307"
I'm pretty firmly of the opinion we should say "yes" to both. 😉
Another difference, perhaps, is that I'm also pretty firmly realist, and I noted you acknowledged that your theory here is anti-realist. (I can see why Andrei referred to it as "instrumentalist.")
I do agree the notion of "particles" is problematic, but my approach lies in trying to solve those problems. As I believe you point out, the key mystery is why something with a wave description and arguably very large size has point-like interactions. That said, and I think is part of what drives your approach (?), that interaction is a disturbance in the EMF field that transfers energy to the electron field of some "electron" in the material of the detector. Who can really say how actually "point-like" that interaction really is. The electron's position isn't localized either.
In fact, as with the mystery of which radioactive atom in a sample decays to preserve the half-life stats (which seems to require a collaboration of all the atoms in the sample), the question of which electron of which atom in the detector may well involve the entire electron field of the detector. If Frank gets cross, can it really be tied to a specific electron absorbing the photon? The realist in me wants to say "of course" but maybe it's more complicated than that.
I suppose another difference is that I think there might be a Heisenberg Cut that divides QM from CM. My working notion is that CM emerges from QM. As with anything emergent, it's possible to describe it in terms of the lower level, which perhaps is what your program of bringing noncommutativity to CM. (Ironically, it seems Andrei would prefer to take commutativity to QM.)
I'll come back to this later. I just wanted to let you know I hadn't faded out completely. It just takes me a while to get to things these days. Two last bits:
"I skipped the beam-splitter, above."
I get how you'd see it in terms of your approach. My question in terms of MWI is more pedestrian and specific. How does the Schrödinger equation describe a beam-splitter? Or the two-slit experiment? I'm still trying to learn how to do that math. (So I'm a long way from keeping up with your paper!)
(It is interesting to know about APDs though. I've been meaning to look into how single photons are detected. A few Google searches I tried didn't return helpful hits I guess because I didn't know what to search for.)
"Most of what I currently have to say about the relationship between collapse pictures and no-collapse pictures of QM is in the SleightOfHand paper."
What I've seen so far is heavily mathematical. I'm not clear on how a measurement can collapse, a phrase I think I saw on a slide. I do get that, in many of these experiments, we make many measurements on presumably similarly prepared systems and treat them as an ensemble.
In any event, I don't have the focus on collapse (or non) that some do. (Proponents of MWI include it in their mantra, for instance.) I see it as a secondary issue to more primary concerns, such as superposition, interference, and entanglement. Those are physical mysteries I want to solve!
You must be something of a completist if you're watching everything on my YouTube channel in order! I tell myself that the nose video is appropriately ego-deflationary and I'll let it be. I've always thought it's bad enough that it's beyond so bad it's funny. I'm definitely not someone who never changes their mind, so I will need you to cut me some slack for that.
I'm happy to grant you the yes-to-both. I often feel that "here's a particle" is much too common in what people say about QM, so I lean into saying the opposite, but saying there are no particles or particle properties whatsoever and that it's never helpful denies too much, so I try to gradually walk it back. It may lead to trouble if you say that the spin is a persistent property of a particle, however, so, when it is trouble, perhaps it's preferable to think of that "spin-up" property as only momentary.
I think a similar flow happens in my approach to realism/instrumentalism. Yes, taking signal analysis as a grounding is quite instrumental, but people have become so used to talking about particle properties, and getting into trouble because of it, that I think it's good to take a time out. If we start from the signals out of an experiment, what can we justify from them? Events, definitely. Some aspects of particle properties, yes, but that's definitely more hazy. I think what happens between recorded events is "real" even if we have no record of it, but we don't have a record, so it has an epistemically slightly different status. We can interpolate and extrapolate, and I'm happy and it's interesting/fun to do so, but also I think it's best to acknowledge that such will be a guess and an imaginative leap amongst a plethora of possibilities. And then, we also have to say that some interpolations and extrapolations more often work well than others.
For RSI/MWI's idea of "How does the Schrödinger equation describe a beam-splitter?", I think decoherence as a description of how events happen in different places works well enough, if we've demystified "collapse" and "no-collapse". I think RSI/MWI adopted the large numbers approach to what a detector does about as soon as the decoherence approach was invented. I take the objection to decoherence to be that it doesn't change a state that is a superposition into a state that is a mixture, but that's not an objection if we're not too realist about what the state is: it's the record of events that's real (or the signal that we didn't record but that we suppose we could have recorded.) That's more-or-less the idea in SleightOfHand: we can use many different instances of a state-and-observables to model the same record of events, with or without collapse (but, significantly, in mathematical detail).
What I think I will have meant by "measurement can collapse", or something like it, is that the collapse of a state is a result of a particular use of projection operators, bracketed around a density operator, but we can use those same projection operators bracketed around subsequent measurement operators to obtain the same result. Perhaps it's an unfortunate turn of phrase, but I think it also somewhat agrees with what Bohr had to say about measurement.
I more think that "we create records of many events, for which we then look for a causal explanation" than that "we make many measurements on presumably similarly prepared systems", but I'm OK with "similarly prepared systems" if by that you mean the noisy state of the electromagnetic field, not the state of a photon.
"You must be something of a completist…"
😀 Yeah, one might say that. 😀 It's possible I'm somewhere on the spectrum. OCD, if not a clinical description, is definitely a metaphorical one. I'm usually able to sublimate it into my work. My code, for instance, was formatted with readability in mind (lining stuff up, for instance), and I followed the literary programming technique of ordered functions or methods in a file. Open one of my modules or classes, and you'll know exactly where to find things.
When it comes to collections of things, yeah, definitely completist. I've haunted plenty of used book stores looking to complete collections, and I have all 50 state quarters plus the territories. (And then there's this.)
"I'm happy to grant you the yes-to-both."
I do get that from the little asides on the slides. I think we're more or less on the same page in terms of recognizing that "particle" is a placeholder for something much more complicated and not well understood.
To be sure, I don't intend any down grading of a program about signal analysis or one that seeks to unify CM and QM. I think those are both really great things! As I mentioned to Andrei, I'm struggling to learn the mainstream math right now, and most of my energy for basic physics goes to that end. But the signal analysis in particular does seem a rich area for development.
I wonder to what extent, or not, your work might intersect with, for instance, the part of CERN concerned with signal analysis of the massive amounts of data that come from their ATLAS, CMS, and other, big detectors. As I understand it, they necessarily throw away more data than they can keep, and that's data known to contain collision events (let alone data during quiet periods).
I also wonder to what extent the people who built Frank, who is hugely teleological and specific, have investigated the various periods you've suggested. The non-event times, the dead time after one, or the power-on versus power-off differences. Seems like designers and builders would want to know those things? Is it possible they might have some of the raw data that interests you?
"We can interpolate and extrapolate […], but also I think it's best to acknowledge that such will be a guess and an imaginative leap amongst a plethora of possibilities."
True. My question, I think, is at what point can we allow some faith in, at least, the interpolations? Extrapolation is always tricky, but when one has a lot of closely-spaced data points, and multiple experiments with essentially identical results, is there a point we can become confident we understand what lies between those data points? (At least until something proves that wrong.)
What could we reasonably expect to find at 10-100 meters given what we know about much (much!) larger scales? (I have no idea, but it seems an interesting question.)
"For RSI/MWI's idea of 'How does the Schrödinger equation describe a beam-splitter?', I think decoherence as a description of how events happen in different places works well enough, if we've demystified 'collapse' and 'no-collapse'."
Ah, but have we? 🙂 Before we take off on decoherence, looking at my wording, I may have given the wrong impression about my beam-splitter question. I'm not asking how MWI (or any interpretation) would account for it, but how the Schrödinger equation would express it mathematically. In particular, does it express from the beginning a superposition of two particles whose paths diverge, or does it express a single particle that takes on a superposition of likely positions. (Or does my lack of understanding make the question badly formed?)
But back on the farm, have we demystified collapse? As I've mentioned, I do see it as a lesser mystery, but on the other hand, it's what led to the MWI and other interpretations, so it clearly bothers some!
Collapse is a good topic here. The previous post, part 2, goes into detail about my issues with "decoherence" as the answer to any of this. Perhaps we might discuss it there as a separate thread? (I'll leave a comment as a seed. Feel free to ignore it.)
"…the collapse of a state is a result of a particular use of projection operators, bracketed around a density operator, but we can use those same projection operators bracketed around subsequent measurement operators to obtain the same result."
That math is on the edge of what I can follow clearly, so I know what you're referring to here. I have some difficulty, though, seeing how what appears purely a math operation connects with experiment. What does it translate to in terms of what I could, or could not, do experimentally?
This is, again, my ignorance, but it seems like the ability to do things with numbers doesn't always have a physical meaning. Can you tie the notion of collapse of measurement to a concrete set of experimental steps?
"I more think that 'we create records of many events, for which we then look for a causal explanation' than that 'we make many measurements on presumably similarly prepared systems', but I'm OK with 'similarly prepared systems' if by that you mean the noisy state of the electromagnetic field, not the state of a photon."
Oh, sure, you betcha. (I'm curious what your objection is to my wording. Don't we record events of a specific system and do that multiple times?)
I'm still and may always be too much on the sidelines to get the chance to have a long conversation with experimentalists. I've seen people give talks at the Yale Quantum Institute that have veered towards a signal analysis perspective, but I think it's never been the main course, which is either almost bare math or it's the QM particles-kinda-go-from-here-to-there story. Which is largely fine, because we're all well used to translating those stories into Hilbert spaces and operators (and a long list of fancier linear algebra of operations and transformers and POVMs and …), and we hedge everything with wave language as needed.
Part of what I like about Frank is that of course we all know it's not a teleological story, but I think we also all have to work hard not to let it worm itself into our heads as a teleological story. I think how that goes down might make it possible to think about measurement as much less in our control — which it isn't because Frank chooses when to get cross, we don't choose a moment as the moment of measurement. We put Frank in the way and let him do his thing (now say all that without Frank as an intermediary).
In six months time nobody may remember Frank, but he's showing signs of being something of a meme: I've seen multiple people find him curiously different from the usual ways of talking about measurement devices without me pushing him hard.
On interpolation, I think of the J/Psi particle discovery as something of a counter-example. It was only when they scanned the energy spectrum with enough precision that they were able to spot it (https://www.google.com/search?q=J%2Fpsi+peak+graph, for example). On interpolation alone, J/Psi could be as good as nonexistent. Depending on how you compute statistics and interpolate, say with different order polynomials, you can get graphs that look massively different. There can be methods that turn out to work well in many different cases, so we get used to using those instead of other methods: when we find that kind of thing we like to have a sense of why so we don't overuse it.
I'm almost always nervous of the idea of "systems". Quantum field theory arguably has no such thing, insofar as there are just regions of space-time and measurements associated with those regions, but QM can't go more than a paragraph without introducing them. So somehow the idea of a system as something different from a region of space-time has been slipped in. I have a kinda workable sense of how, and yes, it becomes quite solid when systems are tables and chairs, but it doesn't feel precise enough and my spidey-sense objects much more strongly to this than I see in what other people say about QM. If you say "systems", I practically have to tie myself down not to object (which I can do, because people get bored with it, but it happens a lot). Bohm's implicate and explicate order (loosely, there are connections of everything with everything), is something that I find more-or-less congenial, but that's a dangerously crazy-vague thing to claim any affinity with (it looks to me, however, as if Bohm came to the implicate-explicate order ideas as much out of the math of QFT as out of Eastern philosophy).
"I'm still and may always be too much on the sidelines to get the chance to have a long conversation with experimentalists."
Are there papers published by data capture scientists at CERN (or other labs) or are their processes too proprietary? It does seem this is an area others ought to be considering. Both in terms of signal analysis and small scale observation. Humans poke into everything; one would think this as well. But then science does seem to have some weird oversights.
"Part of what I like about Frank is that of course we all know it's not a teleological story,"
Can you expand on that? To me, Frank's design and construction are entirely teleological. By which I mean intentional and for a purpose. Do you define teleological differently? Or are we talking about two different things?
One thing that strikes me about a signal analysis approach is that the signals, as you've stressed, come from the experiment but also the detector and all following electronics. An SA approach means having to factor all that into account. One ends up with a theory that includes the whole signal chain. I guess that's been part of your point all along?
"I'm almost always nervous of the idea of 'systems'."
(I assume not the plural use, but the word itself.) I think I see a "system" — as you say — as a 'region of space-time' and associated measurements. As with "particle" I see it as a short-hand word that often needs unpacking in specific contexts.
I do think we mean a bit more than just a region, though. The physical structure of that region is significant and has to be part of the account. That's probably what "system" is reaching for — the notion objects and relationships between them (whatever those objects might be; fields are objects).
One thing that's becoming clear from the videos and slides is that your program is, as you've said, anti-realist (and, I think, strongly instrumentalist). Without in any way devaluing programs based on those notions, I have to be honest that I don't share them. I'm strongly on the side of philosophical realism, and that extends to scientific realism. My interests lie in theories that explain the physical world.
There is also that it's a heavily mathematical theory, and a lot of the math is way over my head, so keeping up there is hopeless for me. (The math that appears in some of my posts pretty much represents how far I've gotten. A lot of these posts are almost a kind of homework for me — trying to improve understanding by writing about what I'm learning.)
As you know from software, entering into a huge body of software and hardware is extremely time-consuming without a guide. I think many people have poked deep into this, but I think it's not very often discussed in popular science articles or textbooks about quantum theory.
I can see that I introduced a confusion by saying teleological without elaboration. Sorry. As I think I said in the IQOQI talk, Frank is complicated, even perhaps including patterned substructures that are very complicated indeed, but it (not "she/he") is not conscious (though if Frank were to use a mouse brain as part of the chain of signal analysis, boundaries might be blurred). I think my point is that Frank doesn't have intentions, but, as you say, the designers and builders of Frank do have intentions.
A system is to me very different from a region of space-time. Part of my problem is that I'm not sure how we should define a system in terms of regions of space-time. The only definition that is consistently used in QFT is Wigner's definition in terms of irreducible representations of the Poincaré group, which is infinitely extended over all space-time. I think your attempt to say what it is shows clear signs of struggling, then you fall back on an essentially classical idea of objects and relationships between them that has nothing to do with regions of space-time. That's fine, but QM takes "systems" as an obvious concept whereas QFT takes space-time regions as an obvious concept, which I think introduces a problematic leap given how much rides on it.
Fields (quantum) are not objects! At least, I think they're objects only in a relatively much more abstract sense than an experimental apparatus. A quantum field provides us with a collection of operators. A quantum state ρ gives us a number ρ(O) for each operator O in that collection. We somehow make a pragmatic bridge between many such numbers ρ(Oᵢ) and particular statistics Sᵢ out of an experiment. Across many experiments over many decades, those bridges become engineering rules. I think of the statistics as firmly associated with objects, the experimental apparatus, and the ρ(Oᵢ) only slightly less so, but without a state to give us numbers I think the association has become too tenuous for us to say that a quantum field, as a collection of O's, is an object without any qualification. All I'm saying, I guess, is that a quantum field is not the same kind of object as an experimental apparatus.
I started out, 30 years ago, as realist as I think anyone could want, but it eventually seemed to me that it was not good for my state of mind. I became too emotionally attached to one idea or another. So I started to reconstruct myself as an anti-realist. Over time, everything mathematical/physical has become "just" a model, or a placeholder for what there is, or whatever. In many ways, I'm now in the process of reconstructing a more realist way of thinking about the mathematics I've been doing. I doubt I'll ever be as realist as someone who hasn't so resolutely backed away from realism for so long, but if that's the price of doing the work without falling apart, so be it, I guess.
Signal analysis is not isolated from the experimental apparatus that generates it, so I think we can fill in between what we have as formal records from our experiment, just as we can fill in from background knowledge and a subway map to get some idea of what each station might look like on the surface. Given background knowledge and an abstract quantized simple harmonic oscillator, think what an actual experimental apparatus that is modeled by that qSHO would look like? Some people, having more background knowledge, will be able to do that better than others.
I think the game I'm playing takes existing equations in the physics literature and fills in between them in mathematically unusual but correct enough ways that a physicist hopefully can recognize them. I get out of the box and then I try to come back. If I do it well enough I can get the work published in decent physics journals, which I have done, but I might not be able to do in future. I can't make very good contact with the experimental apparatus because I don't have enough of that experience, but perhaps I can make enough contact with physicists who have. At the same time I'm apparently interested enough in making contact with interested non-physicists to expend considerable effort replaying the mathematical ideas in different ways to see what happens next. We can stop now, if you like, or whenever.
July 22nd, 2021 at 12:52 pm
"We can stop now, if you like, or whenever."
Your most recent comment confirmed what this implied. As I replied, totally understand, and I hope it wasn't without value. Your story about realism not being a good fit; perhaps it means you're a natural theorist. More than just a theorist, an explorer theorist. You've certainly given me some new perspectives.
I'll leave it with this:
I keep thinking about the contrast between Frank-the-APD and Frank-the-human, who, as all of us are, is also a detector. Both are constantly detecting stuff. There is also Frank-the-rock-in-my-garden, who is also a detector (famous in discussions of pancomputationalism, Frank-the-rock-computer).
What all three Franks seem to have in common to me is that they are not quantum objects and cannot be usefully treated as such. As I've confessed, my possible insanity is an abiding belief in a Heisenberg Cut that divides the quantum and classical worlds. I believe CM is emergent with its own set of behaviors.
I think all three Franks are classical objects that CM describes well until we seriously zoom into one tiny part of it. The leptons that comprise the Franks are the same in all three cases, and certainly are quantum objects with quantum descriptions. The atoms have some variance — the APD has some exotic ones; the rock is mostly silicon — and the molecules are even more varied. That's two levels of emergent behavior, each with less and less quantum behavior. The rock won't have much differentiation (but some) whereas the other two Franks have a lot of internal structure. The human has complex compounds, then cells, then organs, all of which do really well with classical descriptions — in fact, which would be challenging to describe in terms of QM.
So Frank doesn't seem to have a useful quantum description, but ever smaller sub-sections of him do. By "useful" I mean that no doubt there is some quantum density matrix that describes Frank, but it seems it would be of such vast size that it can only be viewed as an abstraction. Indeed, can we even talk about Frank as a quantum object without including his environment? Even more complex!
Anyway, good luck with your QFT program! Drop by any time!
With regard to the claim that quantum computing requires multiple worlds to do it's special computing, this rebuttal:
Yes! Exactly!


The No. 2 Longhorns walked out of the Frank Erwin Center winners for the first time this season after their Sunday afternoon home opener against Stetson University with a score of 95-59. Here are the top three takeaways from the team's first game.
Junior Lashann Higgs took advantage of her opportunities on Sunday. On multiple occasions, the shooting guard had three-point play opportunities and converted, not letting even the toughest foul stop her from getting to the rim. She tallied 14 points in the first half, and added four in the second after getting some time off due to a substantial Texas lead. Overall, she shot 7-9 from the field and 4-5 from the line, and grabbed two rebounds in 18 minutes.
It looks as though senior Ariel Atkins is seeing the game at a different speed than most everyone else. Her six assists led the Longhorns on Sunday, while she also recorded nine points and added in four rebounds, four steals and a block. Atkins was often seen streaking across the court, driving into the lane, going for the steal or kicking the ball back out to an open teammate.
While Texas' offensive firepower may steal the headlines from Sunday afternoon's victory, Aston believes if Texas want reach the Final Four come March, it will need to improve its defensive prowess.
Texas' defensive struggles were particularly noticeable in the interior, where Stetson sophomore forward Kennedi Colclough recorded 19 points for the Hatters on 8-13 shooting. It looked as if at times she was scoring at will.


Originally published on Rich Vein Travel.
When planning a luxury holiday it can be incredibly difficult finding a dog-friendly hotel or cat-friendly hotel. Finding hotels that allow dogs in particular can be especially challenging in the most popular holiday destinations. So, whether you are looking for a luxury family holiday, romantic break, or even if you are intending to travel solo (to a degree!), we have found the most pet-friendly luxury hotels of the world. These hotels not only allow both cats and dogs, but they celebrate them, making it perfect for discerning travellers and their four-legged friends.
With its dedicated Pampered Pets Programme, the Langham the only pet-friendly five-star hotel in Sydney. It is the perfect choice for a luxury holiday in Australia. Upon arrival your four-legged travel companion can take a quick sip from the pink Langham-branded water bowls, whilst two-legged guests are greeted in the lobby by the incredibly friendly staff. Once in your room, you will be pleased to see that pets are offered the Langham five-star treatment with their own plush Langham doggie bed and water bowl, to match your own Langham Blissful Bed and private bar.
Should you feel peckish, take advantage of the 24-hour room service, and help your pampered pooch or feline friend choose from the specially designed pet menu. With a range of options from angus beef tartar to poached salmon with seasonal vegetables there is the opportunity to try a new dish each day.
At the historic 800-year-old Ashford Castle, your spectacular holiday begins as soon as you enter the grounds of this remarkable hotel. Recently featured on the BBC's "Amazing Hotels: Life Beyond the Lobby" impeccable service is a given for humans and canines alike. Cronan and Garvan, the castle's resident Irish wolfhounds thoroughly enjoy the opportunity to greet guests in the hotel lobby. And in the room for the duration of your stay, Ashford Castle will provide a comfortable bed, fluffy towels, turndown treats, and food and water bowls with fresh mineral water for VIP's (Very Important Pets).Morning walkies could not be more exciting with immense lawns and enchanting forests spread throughout the private 350-acre estate. With so much to do and see, this cat-friendly and dog-friendly hotel could quite easily be a holiday destination in itself. You may find yourself never wanting to leave!
This luxury hotel of the world is surrounded by private Mediterranean gardens, with stunning views of Rome and the Vatican. Presiding over the resort is longstanding resident Contessa of the Cavalieri, a beautiful chocolate dachshund. Her exacting standards ensure that the resort never fails to impress her four legged guests.For pets, services include a delicious doggy menu and dog walking throughout the expansive grounds. Pets are also warmly welcomed at the Tiepolo Lounge & Terrace. Open throughout the day the Tiepolo Lounge is the perfect rendezvous for morning coffee and light meals with live evening entertainment courtesy of Jaffa, the charismatic jazz pianist.
Blending English heritage with contemporary sophistication the stylish Rosewood London is effortlessly elegant. Upon arrival pets receive delicious welcome treats, before being shown to the room where they will find a sumptuous bed, and food and water bowls. All dogs also receive a tailor-made London guide from Pearl, the Rosewood London's resident retriever who occasionally greets guests upon arrival. This paw-fect guide highlights London's best dog friendly restaurants, coffee shops, pubs and more, so you and your adorable pooch can explore the city in full. However, pets are also welcome in all food and beverage outlets within the hotel too.For a truly indulgent luxury holiday in London, Rosewood also provides a luxury canine package in collaboration with Barbour and Lily's Kitchen which includes a 1-hour pampering experience for your dog with celebrity dog groomer, Jamie Griffen, Barbour dog amenities, and Lily's Kitchen healthy organic meals.


Karma Sound Studios is the fulfillment of one man's extraordinary dream to build a spectacular state-of-the-art recording studio and locate it within a luxurious residential complex in a far-off exotic destination. Now, after three years, his Gauguinesque 'dream' is catching the imagination of some of the biggest names in music.
Karma's slightly unusual setting – a short trek from the sleepy and arguably un-hip coastal fishing village of Bang Saray, some 90 minutes' drive from Bangkok – is certainly typical of an industry that thrives on being unconventional, and there's no question that the studio's isolation not only adds to its quirkiness, but also lifts its appeal enormously to musicians looking for somewhere that will stir their creative juices. That almost undefinable ambience, alongside Karma's superb technical capabilities, are attracting clients from literally all over the world.
It's a magical place, welcoming and inspirational. The four young musicians from Enter Shikari with celebrated producer, Dan Weller, were clearly motivated by Karma's unique qualities last year, tapping into its amazing technical resources to record their first chart-topping album.
Many others have similarly been inspired by the studio's special atmosphere, including iconic global bands Placebo, Young Guns and Jamiroquai from the UK, as have a slew of top Thai artists like Palmy, Tata Young, Chin Chinawut, Potato and Myra, winner of Thailand's Got Talent.
Artists from Brunei (Maria Koh), Singapore (SIXX) and Japan (Akiro Jimbo) have also graced the studios, along with some of the world's top producers like Kipper (Sting's producer) and Joseph Curiale, who has famously worked with Quincy Jones and Michael Jackson.
Super star Jessie J from the UK dropped by and wants to record there. And one of the truly greats of rock music, Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page, who is currently working on a collection of Brazilian samba music has also enjoyed the vibe of this very special place. Celebrated classical musicians have graced the studio and to further underscore Karma's broad appeal, highly rated English classical crossover singer Thomas Spencer spent all of last month at the studio.
Founder and owner of Karma is Briton Chris Craker, who's spent the past 30 years at the highest levels of the music industry in all capacities, from composer, conductor and record producer to musician, author and successful businessman, spending three years as Senior Vice President of Sony BMG Masterworks in London and New York.
Chris first came to Thailand in 1995 to produce a recording of His Majesty The King's music by Privy Councillor M.L.Usni Pramoj, returning many times to work on various projects, including Tata Young's massive hit song 'Reach for the Stars,' which was recorded for the 1998 Asian Games.
Impressed by his experiences here and the people he met, and increasingly disenchanted by the way the music industry back in the West was heading, Chris saw a golden opportunity to realize a dream and establish a world-class recording studio in Thailand.
To make it possible, Chris quit his job at Sony BMG, uprooted his family and ploughed his life's savings into the project.
Further inspiration came from the past success of Air Montserrat, the recording studio set up in the Caribbean in the 1970s by George Martin, the musical genius behind the Beatles, which had a huge influence on the development of music. But don't compare Air to Karma, insists Chris. "Karma is actually rather different and unique. It's the only luxury high end residential recording studio in Thailand and among the very best in the world. We are also quickly becoming the 'must go to' facility in SE Asia," he says.
There's been an unforeseen bonus too. Thanks to its beautiful – and concealed – tropical garden setting, Chris's "creative utopia" has also become a popular venue for shooting videos, TV programmes and private concerts featuring poolside acoustic sets.
"Some artists come to record, others to shoot videos and some simply to soak up the magical atmosphere and ambience of the place and write hit songs – all of them go away having had a truly memorable experience and our guest book reads like a 'who's who' of the music industry, with one effusive comment after another," says Chris.
Jamiroquai were similarly inspired. So much so, in fact, their charismatic lead singer Jay Kay decided some time after the band had finished recording to hang out on the nearby beach and chat with the locals, none of whom suspected this was the rock star rumoured to be holidaying in the area.
Another recent Karma client was the Welsh band Bullet For My Valentine, who spent five weeks at the studio. "They were amazing – by far the noisiest band we've ever had," recalls Chris. "When they asked in advance for 40 replacement drum skins, we were puzzled. By the end of the recording session, they had got through the lot, and we understood the reason for this odd request.
Surprisingly, perhaps, few of the visiting musicians have lived up to their hype as wild things. "Generally, they quickly get into the local culture, visit the markets and temples, and have a good time here. And Pattaya is really just a little bit too far away to pose any worries – although when time off is required, it's just twenty five minutes away," says Chris.
Other clients have included Young Guns who recorded their album and hit single 'Bones' at the studio. Rising stars Franko are regulars, which is great for Chris as his son Richard is a band member.
With Karma's reputation now firmly established and demand for studio time growing rapidly, Chris has ambitious plans for the project which will require him and his wife Kate to spend most of the year in Thailand.
On the drawing board is another studio block with a dedicated area for shooting videos, as well as three additional recording suites. Chris is also setting up Karma's own IPTV channel where content created at the studio can be disseminated all over the world.
Later this year, Karma will launch a series of educational courses covering the art of songwriting, production techniques, and marketing in music. "We'll be opening our doors to some international schools and university music departments in Thailand in order to build strong links with developing artists as well as those wishing to enter the music industry," explains Chris.
Beyond running the studio complex, Chris somehow also finds time to get involved in staging concerts and live musical events through his association with Rock n Rolla, a Bangkok-based company that has brought in top international names like Fatboy Slim, Deep Purple, DJ Shadow and most recently Incubus, who appeared at the Silverlake Music Festival in Pattaya. In November, Rock n Rolla will step up a gear by putting on Bangkok concerts featuring musical luminaries Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds.
The rise of Karma Sound Studios from one man's wishful thinking ten years ago to become a major influence on the world's music industry is truly astonishing. Who would ever have thought that sleepy Bang Saray might one day become synonymous with such a famous enterprise?
KARMA Sound Studios is a cross between a luxury resort and a wonderfully equipped recording studio complex. Two studios, both with outstanding sounding live rooms, are set around a beautiful swimming pool, private gym, bar, massage room, an outdoor live performance area and stunning tropical private gardens.
The equipment is a fusion of classic analogue and state-of-the-art digital: Studio 1 has a large, spacious, live room with four isolation areas and a massive window overlooking the pool and tropical gardens, giving an extraordinary sense of natural light. It is equipped with a very highly spec'd Pro Tools rig running on a Mac Pro 8 core Intel computer (with full UAD2 Quad system attached). The spacious control room boasts a fully refurbished 'classic' SSL 4056 E/G+ desk with Total Recall.
Studio 2 is a smaller writing, tracking, mixing/mastering and overdub suite with a comfortable control room and a fabulous sounding live room for vocals, guitars etc. Both studios have access to a comprehensive microphone collection and an excellent selection of vintage and modern outboard gear. A useful selection of instruments and outboard gear are available at extremely reasonable rates.
Karma also features stylish en-suite guest rooms, indoor and outdoor dining areas, and two beautifully appointed lounges. A bi-lingual Housekeeper oversees the needs of guests, including full catering. If required, further luxury accommodation is available just two minutes' drive away in a stunning boutique resort hotel.
In-house staff include award-winning producers and engineers involved at the very highest level in the music business internationally, led by Chris Craker, who can also assist with brokering licensing deals, marketing campaigns, the staging and promotion of live concerts and tours in SE Asia.
CHRIS Craker has been at the forefront of the music industry for more than 30 years, winning awards and acclaim as a performer, recording artist, composer, arranger, producer/engineer, record label founder, artist manager, author, critic, industry commentator, and strategic advisor. Before setting up Karma Sound Studios, he was General Manager and Senior Vice President of the International Division of Sony BMG Masterworks, where he maintained offices in both London and New York.
Now fully independent once more, he consults for a number of high profile music, media and arts organisations, and works in conjunction with related industry partners in telecommunications and film, as well as managing various highly talented acts through his company CMC (Craker Media Company LLP).
Chris has acted as the A&R Director and produced over four hundred classical, jazz and pop recordings and has gained a unique position as one of the most respected record producers based in the UK, responsible for selling many millions of records and helping to shape the careers of many hundreds of artists. His activities have taken him extensively throughout Europe, America and the Far East working on projects for BMG, EMI, Decca, Virgin, PolyGram, Universal, Sony, Koch, ASV, Naxos and Marco Polo (as well as 30 other independent record companies).
Chris has worked with many of the world's finest artists, orchestras and soloists, and has acted as a concept provider for various music products marketed by PolyGram/Universal, Sony, Decca, EMI, Classic FM/BMG and Virgin.
Internationally renowned for his work with the London Symphony and the New York Philharmonic Orchestras, he has also been responsible for either producing and/or marketing recordings by some of the world's greatest classical artists in Murray Perahia, John Williams, Yo Yo Ma, Joshua Bell, Viktoria Mullova, Barbara Bonney and many others.
Highlights from the jazz world include co-producing Vince Mendoza's ultimate cross-over album 'Epiphany,' featuring the LSO with jazz icons Michael Brecker, Peter Erskine, Kenny Wheeler, John Abercrombie and John Taylor. In 2002 Chris was Executive Producer and responsible for the international marketing campaigns for Rolling Stones drummer Charlie Watts' Big Band albums, recorded live at Ronnie Scotts Jazz Club in London.
He has also either played on or worked in a marketing capacity for recordings featuring Elton John, Sarah Brightman, Celine Dion, Tony Bennett, Alan Parsons and many others. He conducted the musical Chess in London's West End working alongside Benny and Bjorn from Abba and featuring West End musical legend Elaine Page, as well as being involved in productions in the West End of Miss Saigon, Les Miserables, Phantom of the Opera, Evita and Jesus Christ Superstar.
Chris also co-produced the Chris de Burgh 'Live in Bangkok' album for which he was also Musical Director and conductor for the live shows. As Executive Producer for the new recording from the world's most celebrated guitarist, John Willams, Chris has covered all styles of music from early classical to contemporary jazz and pop.
Over the past ten years Chris has frequently undertaken recording projects in the USA and Asia, and has formed a strong link with many recording artists in those territories. In South East Asia, he has produced more than ten recordings in Thailand featuring the compositions of His Majesty The King of Thailand, King Bhumipol Adulyadej, which has been an absolute career highlight for him.
With his all-round experience, Chris is also in demand as an industry spokesperson on radio and TV, as a strategic consultant to numerous organizations, and as an adjudicator for international music competitions around the world.


text:
Reckless Love Affair is a studio album by American recording artist Wanda Jackson. It was released in March 1967 via Capitol Records and included 12 tracks. It was Jackson's tenth studio album release and was a collection of songs tailored towards the country music market. Reckless Love Affair included four singles that reached charting positions on the American country chart, including the top 20 hit "Tears Will Be the Chaser for Your Wine". The album itself reached charting positions in the United States and received a positive review following its initial release.

Background and content
Wanda Jackson released a series of Rockabilly recordings during the late 1950s, which included the top 40 hit "Let's Have a Party" and the international hit "Fujiyama Mama". In 1961, Jackson returned to her country music roots and had two top ten country hits with "Right or Wrong" and "In the Middle of a Heartache". She would continue to be identified with country music throughout the decade. Reckless Love Affair was among the albums Jackson recorded specifically for the country audience. The record was a concept studio album that included "Passionate words of heartbreak falling from tear-moistened lips", according to the liner notes. It was recorded in sessions held at the Columbia Studio in Nashville, Tennessee and was produced by Ken Nelson. The sessions were held between 1961 and 1966.

Reckless Love Affair was a collection of 12 newly recorded tracks. The album's fifth track, "What Have We Done", was composed by Jackson and her husband Wendell Goodman. The rest of the album had tracks composed by other writers and performers. The project featured several songs that told a story focused on the album's concept. The title track centered around a woman engaged in an affair. Meanwhile, "Tears Will Be the Chaser for Your Wine" and "This Gun Don't Care" offered advice to from a woman who finds her husband straying from their marriage. The liner notes describe "Long as I Have You" as a "melodious ballad celebrating the sunnier side of love".

Release and chart performance

Reckless Love Affair was released in March on 1967 on Capitol Records. It was originally issued as a vinyl LP, containing six songs on either side of the record. The album was Jackson's tenth American studio release. In later decades it was re-released to digital and streaming markets, including Apple Music. Reckless Love Affair received a positive response from Billboard magazine following its original 1967 release. Writers called it "a winner all the way and will receive heavy radio exposure." The record also reached a charting position on the American country chart, peaking at number 17 on the Billboard Top Country Albums survey in June 1967. It was Jackson's third album to reach a Billboard chart position.

Singles
Four singles were included on Reckless Love Affair. The first release was "Let Me Talk to You" in July 1963. It was followed by "The Box It Came In", which was issued as a single in January 1966. The song reached number 18 on the Billboard Hot Country Singles chart in March 1966, becoming Jackson's first top 20 hit single since 1962. It was followed in May 1966 by the single "Because It's You". The single reached number 28 on the Billboard country chart in July 1966. In August 1966, "This Gun Don't Care" was issued as the third single from the album. The song peaked at number 46 on the Billboard country list in October 1966. It was followed by "Tears Will Be the Chaser for Your Wine" in December 1966. The song climbed to number 11 on the Hot Country Singles chart by March 1967, becoming Jackson's highest chart hit since 1962.

Track listings

Vinyl version

Digital version

Chart performance

Release history

References

1967 albums
Albums produced by Ken Nelson (United States record producer)
Capitol Records albums
Wanda Jackson albums

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: How to retrieve jenkins build pipeline number? In Jenkins I would like to build my test environment based on the "Build Pipeline Number" to make tests and deployment repeatable (on the same source version), but I didn't find any environment variable to retrieve this number. I tried to use the BUILD_ID but it is different for each job (downstream project).
Is it possible to retrieve the Build Pipeline Number? Or is there any other control number that I can use that is the same for all the jobs (increases on a new build)?

A: If you are using the less popular Delivery pipeline plugin there is a  PIPELINE_VERSION environment variable. Otherwise, with the Build pipeline plugin you would probably have to use your VCS revision number and pass it downstream with Parameterized Trigger Plugin
If you would like to see the list of all current available environment variables just run a batch command SET from your build step (or if linux in shell env)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
The AAA-ICDR Foundation is now accepting Initial Descriptions of Grant Requests for its 2020 cycle. In its review, the Foundation's primary focus will be on innovative and replicable proposals that specifically focus on one or more of the following areas, priority will be given to grants that focus on restorative justice and access to justice in arbitration:
Access to justice in arbitration
ADR for vulnerable and underserved populations
ADR for community focused dispute resolution
Providing opportunities for dialogue in situations involving racial, ethnic and religious conflict
Beyond these specific focus areas, the Foundation remains committed to funding high-quality, innovative programs dedicated to mediation/other non-binding ADR processes and arbitration/other binding ADR processes. All proposals accepted must further the Foundation's broader mission.
Interested organizations or individuals should submit a one-to-two-page Initial Description of Grant Request no later than October 11, 2019. See below for process and forms.
The Foundation will be hosting a brief Q&A call in September regarding the initial description process to answer any questions from potential grantees. Call-in details will be posted here in early September.
Click here to view PDF of Initial Description of Grant Request. All interested organizations must submit the Initial Description of Grant Request online by visiting the Foundation's online grant management site.
New Online Applicant Tutorial: Written Instructions
New Online Site Access and Account Creation Video
New Online Applying for Funding Video
New Online Applicant Dashboard Video
FAQs for Grant Applicants and Grantees
Reporting Guidelines for Grantees
What We've Funded
The AAA-ICDR Foundation funded sixteen grants in its fourth funding cycle. The Foundation received over one hundred Initial Descriptions of Grant Requests. The Foundation, after a careful review of all of the submissions and the presentation of full grant proposals, approved the following sixteen grants totaling over $475,000 in funding:
ABA Arbitration Competition: $10,000 to fund ABA's annual Law Student Division Competition.
ACR Elder Justice Initiative on Eldercaring Coordination: $17,400 to fund the production of videos explaining the process and demonstrating best practices of Eldercaring Coordination.
Asian Pacific American Dispute Resolution Center: $25,000 to provide a 6-week peer mediation training in communities of color in Los Angeles County.
Big Mouth Productions: $30,000 to fund mediated police-community dialogues using the documentary film CHARM CITY in cities across the US.
Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry: $24,000 to fund creation of a pool of professional mediators to deal with cross border commercial conflicts for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in India.
Community Mediation Maryland: $30,000 to support a recidivism study on re-entry mediation.
Community Mediation Services of Central Ohio: $25,000 to support on-site mediators daily at Franklin County eviction court providing free ADR services to landlords and low-income tenants facing imminent eviction.
Conservation International: $53,894.30 to fund the creation of indigenous negotiators from Africa who can train others in the skill of negotiations to reduce conflicts arising from development projects encroaching on indigenous territories.
Divided Community Project/Ohio State: $45,000 to expand the inaugural training Academy to leaders from across the nation to equip them with tools to strengthen democratic engagement and address civil unrest and community division.
Essential Partners: $24,997.50 to expand the capacity of a community dialogue program in North Carolina, cultivating relationships of trust between police, activists, and citizens through dialogues on race, public safety, and community-police relations.
Institute for Communication & Management of Conflicts D.U.C.K.S: $21,000 to expand the Prison of Peace program in Greece, by teaching peacemaking to inmates and prison personnel to promote a culture of peaceful conflict resolution.
NAFCM: $49,260 to fund a structured listening restorative-based process to be able to help communities with conflict around racial, gender and economic inequities.
Quabbin Mediation: $25,000 to develop an online Training Active Bystander's teaching method.
Research Foundation of CUNY: $35,000 to develop user-friendly conflict resolution training and referral programs for supportive housing providers serving thousands living with mental illness.
Resolutions Northwest: $24,500 to establish a statewide network of twenty Mediators of Color to provide Oregon's historically white ADR standards, practices and institutions with equity, racial and social justice-informed frameworks and practices.
Water Resources Action Project Inc.: $35,000 to support water harvesting environmental peace-building activities with teachers and students from Hebrew and Arabic speaking schools in Israel.
The AAA-ICDR Foundation funded nineteen grants in its third funding cycle. The Foundation received over ninety Initial Descriptions of Grant Requests. The Foundation, after a careful review of all of the submissions and the presentation of full grant proposals, approved the following nineteen grants totaling over $500,000 in funding:
ABA Fund for Justice and Education: $10,000 to fund ABA's annual Law Student Division Arbitration Competition.
Arizona State University Foundation: $59,789 to fund empirical study with goal of providing guidance about what needs to be accomplished during opening stages of mediation.
Association for Conflict Resolution Elder Justice Initiative on Eldercaring Coordination: $32,136 to fund training and expansion of elder caring coordination, a form of conflict resolution.
Association for the Organization and Promotion of the Vienna Mediation and Negotiation Competition: $5,000 to fund the Consensual Dispute Resolution Competition Vienna, which is an educational event in the field of international negotiation and mediation.
Community Mediation Services: $15,181 to fund facilitated dialogues by experienced Restorative Practitioner between youth, community and law enforcement in New Orleans Police Department 1st District.
Conflict Resolution Center of Baltimore County: $40,000 to fund training and direct ADR services in substance abuse centers in Baltimore County, MD.
Consensus Building Institute: $74,950 to fund pilot program in Piermont, NY to train local residents who will spearhead collaborative neighborhood dialogues on resilience planning against rising sea levels and increased flood risks.
CUNY Dispute Resolution Center at John Jay College: $30,000 to fund online access to conflict resolution resources for families worldwide dealing with mental illness.
Environmental Advocates of New York: $10,000 to fund Advocacy Crisis Training for environmental justice communities.
Essential Partners: $24,854 to fund trainings for teaching at-risk youth to lead and participate in more constructive dialogues about conflict and difference.
Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program: $24,921 to fund podcast series intended to help support teaching around dialogue on challenging topics including racial, ethnic and religious conflict.
Institute for Communication and Management of Conflicts – D.U.C.K.S: $12,000 to fund teach the Prison of Peace (PoP) Peacemaker, Mediator and Train the Trainer Workshops in 2 men's prisons in Greece.
International Mediation Institute: $25,000 to fund The Global Pound Conference North America Report.
Kennesaw State University, School of Conflict Management, Peacebuilding and Development: $25,000 to fund creating working model in Athens, Greece to promote dialogue and reduce violence from racial, ethnic, and religious conflict.
King County Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution: $29,850 to fund the Theatre of Mediation where mediators, actors and students present role-play mediations based on real cases involving themes of racial conflict to schools, community groups and in public forums.
Quabbin Mediation: $20,000 to fund expansion of Training Active Bystanders (TAB) model throughout New England to diverse groups.
The Coalition on Racial and Ethnic Justice: $50,000 to fund convening of Dispute Resolution Hackathon events with community stakeholders for equitable, unbiased and humane enforcement of the law.
The Mediation Center: $20,500 to fund creation of standardized online mediation and community dialogue training modules that can be accessed without cost across the state of Tennessee.
The Ohio State University Foundation: $40,000 to fund development and conducting national "academy" targeted to strengthening local leadership capacity to use and collaborate with community mediation experts to plan for and address civil unrest.
The AAA-ICDR Foundation funded 11 grants in its second funding cycle. The Foundation received 92 Initial Descriptions of Grant Requests. Led by its Grants Committee, the Foundation, after a careful review of all of the submissions and the presentation of full grant proposals, approved the following 11 grants totaling approximately $410,000 in funding:
New York State Unified Court System Online Dispute Resolution Platform: $125,000 to fund multi-year pilot for court online dispute resolution (ODR) for small claims cases.
Online Pro Bono Legal Advice: $25,000 to provide low-income citizens access to brief legal advice via an online interactive website, utilizing pro bono attorneys. ABA Fund for Justice and Education: ABA Free Legal Answers.
Conflict De-Escalation Training for Police Officers in Baltimore Schools: $25,040 to fund training for Baltimore City School Police and other school staff. University of Maryland Training in Conflict De-Escalation and Management.
Training for Mediating Parties with Mental Health Issues: $24,998 to fund scalable mediation training for certified peer specialists to serve an underserved population of peers living with mental health issues. Research Foundation of CUNY on behalf of John Jay
College: The Dispute Resolution in Mental Health Initiative.
Columbia Law School Research of Twilight Issues in International Arbitration: $25,000 to fund analysis and development of best practices for twilight issues that are not clearly substantive or procedural with global presentations and publication.
Addressing Unconscious Bias in International Arbitration: $25,000 to fund educational series and mentorship to promote equality, diversity, access to justice, and leadership opportunities. ArbitralWomen Unconscious Bias Toolkit.
Cultivating Dialogue Between Dominant and Non-Dominant Communities in Minnesota: $45,000 to continue funding a transformative project to produce qualitative change in the type of engagement currently taking place between dominant and nondominant communities in Minnesota. Minnesota State Office for Collaboration and Dispute Resolution and Dispute Resolution Institute at Mitchell Hamline School of Law 2017 Talk with Purpose: Using Dispute Resolution to Engage Communities and Foster Relationships for Constructive Change.
Best Uses of ADR to Respond to and Plan for Community Divides: $40,000 to fund a study that describes local ADR responses and planning initiatives to address controversies that divide communities and development of a Community Preparation Assessment Test tool for community use. Ohio State University Foundation on behalf of The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law's Divided Community Project.
The Curators of The University of Missouri: Reasoning in International Commercial Arbitration: Comparisons Across the Common Law-Civil Law Divide, the Domestic-International Divide, and the Judicial - Arbitral Divide: $25,396 to fund research on arbitral reasoning in arbitral awards.
Promoting Peace and Tolerance Through Leadership and ADR Training for Women in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine: $25,000 to support training scholarships for female community leaders from Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine for advanced mediation and leadership training, focused on promoting peace and interfaith/interethnic tolerance. Project Kesher: Training for Women in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.
Promoting Peace Through Leadership and ADR Training for Women in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela: $25,500 for training scholarships to enable women community leaders to complete four days of advanced mediation and community leadership training. Mediators Beyond Borders International—Women in Peacebuilding.
In May 2016, the AAA-ICDR Foundation completed its inaugural funding cycle. The Foundation sent out a press release in October 2015 announcing its inaugural round of grant solicitations. In response, the Foundation received 75 Initial Descriptions of Grant Requests. After a careful review of all of the submissions and the presentation of full grant proposals,the Foundation, led by its Grants Committee, approved the following six grants totaling approximately $175,000 in funding:
Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, Pepperdine University School of Law—Straus Institute Annual Global Summit on Conflict Management, September 2016: $15,000 to supplement the investment of the Straus Institute in supporting the convening of working groups and planners in advance of a summit that will bring together individuals and organizations from all over the world to discuss common issues and concerns associated with complex dispute resolution processes.
Prison Inmate Mediation Training: $75,000 to fund a 40-hour mediation workshop for 30-50 inmates. The workshop will be conducted in one cohort to be completed in 7-10 weeks, creating a new cadre of desperately needed inmate mediators at Valley State Prison and to fund train the trainer program at Valley State Prison, aimed at training new mediators as well as developing a cadre of inmate mediation trainers. Prison of Peace 2016 Valley State Prison Mediation Training Program.
Cultivating Dialogue Between Dominant and Non-Dominant Communities in Minnesota: $24,998 for OCDR/DRI to conduct a transformative project to produce qualitative change in the type of engagement currently taking place between dominant and non-dominant communities in Minnesota. Minnesota State Office for Collaboration and Dispute Resolution Institute at Mitchell Hamline School of Law 2016 Talk with Purpose: Using Dispute Resolution to Engage Communities and Foster Relationships for Constructive Change.
Promoting Peace Through Leadership and ADR Training for Women in Cambodia, Indonesia, Nepal, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand: $25,500 for training scholarships required to enable women community leaders from Cambodia, Indonesia, Nepal, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand to complete four days of advanced mediation and community leadership training in Djakarta, Indonesia. Mediators Beyond Borders International—Women Peacebuilding: Enhancing Skills and Practice Training.
Consensus Building Institute – Innovative ADR in Groundwater Sustainability to Manage California Drought: $25,000 for CBI to highlight and promote the use and the central role of ADR in connection with the implementation of California's Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The creation of a multi-media report (including mini case studies, video segments, and blogs) that highlights the state's impressive use of innovative dispute resolution and collaboration to address conflict and create new government structures will help CBI ensure the sustainability of local groundwater basins. This grant proposal is an opportunity to analyze and highlight the unique role that ADR is playing in this public policy issue that truly goes to the heart of water conflict in California.
American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division – Annual Law Student Arbitration Competition: $10,000 to defray operating expenses, making the event more attractive and affordable for law schools participating in the next competition for the 2016-2017 school year, as law schools have increasingly reduced discretionary funds available. The competition format introduces students to arbitration and allows students to learn and practice skills relating to arbitration advocacy, such as crafting opening and closing statements, introducing evidence, creating demonstrative evidence, preparing witnesses, and developing case themes. This will be the 13 year of the competition.
To speak with us fill in the form below.
Country - None - Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verdes (Territory of Portugal) Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holland Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Islamic Republic of) Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Mariana Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory,Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Republic of Guyana Republic of Marshall Islands Republic of Serbia Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Island South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad & Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States of America Uruguay US Minor Outlying Islands Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Yugoslavia Zambia Zimbabwe
I authorize AAA to use the information I've provided in this form for purposes of marketing communications
© 2019 AAA-ICDR Foundation.
Follow AAA-ICDR Foundation®

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Guardians of Dreams Foundation is a registered Charitable Society with an 80G tax exemption status. All donations are 50% tax exempt.
Tax receipts will be mailed to you automatically within 30 days from the date of the transaction. Please email contact@godreams.org if you require assistance.