A new look at the problem of gauge invariance in quantum field theory

Quantum field theory is assumed to be gauge invariant. However it is well known that when certain quantities are calculated using perturbation theory the results are not gauge invariant. The non-gauge invariant terms have to be removed in order to obtain a physically correct result. In this paper we will examine this problem and determine why a theory that is supposed to be gauge invariant produces non-gauge invariant results.Comment: Accepted by Physica Scripta. 27 page

Confronting the Peppercorn Settlement in Merger Litigation: An Empirical Analysis and a Proposal for Reform

Shareholder litigation challenging corporate mergers is ubiquitous, with the likelihood of a shareholder suit exceeding 90%. The value of this litigation, however, is questionable. The vast majority of merger cases settle for nothing more than supplemental disclosures in the merger proxy statement. The attorneys that bring these lawsuits are compensated for their efforts with a court-awarded fee. This leads critics to charge that merger litigation benefits only the lawyers who bring the claims, not the shareholders they represent. In response, defenders of merger litigation argue that the lawsuits serve a useful oversight function and that the improved disclosures that result are beneficial to shareholders. This Article offers a new approach to assessing the value of these claims by empirically testing the relationship between merger litigation and shareholder voting on the merger. If the supplemental disclosures produced by the settlement of merger litigation are valuable, they should affect shareholder voting behavior. Specifically, supplemental disclosures that are, in effect, “compelled” by settlement should produce new and unfavorable information about the merger and lead to a lower percentage of shares voted in favor of it. Applying this hypothesis to a hand-collected sample of 453 large public company mergers from 2005-2012, we find no such effect. We find no significant evidence that disclosure-only settlements affect shareholder voting. These findings warrant a reconsideration of Delaware merger law. Specifically, under current law, supplemental disclosures are viewed by courts as providing a substantial benefit to the shareholder class. In turn, this substantial benefit entitles the plaintiffs’ lawyers to an award of attorneys’ fees. Our evidence suggests that this legal analysis is misguided and that supplemental disclosures do not in fact constitute a substantial benefit. As a result, and in light of the substantial costs generated by public company merger litigation, we argue that courts should reject disclosure settlements as a basis for attorney fee awards. Our approach responds to critiques of merger litigation as excessive and frivolous by reducing the incentive for plaintiffs’ lawyers to bring weak cases, but it would have an additional benefit. Current practice drags state court judges into the task of indirectly promulgating disclosure standards in connection with the approval of fee awards. We argue, instead, for a more efficient specialization between state and federal courts in the regulation of mergers: public company merger disclosure should be policed by the federal securities laws while state corporate law focuses on substantive fairness

Confronting the Peppercorn Settlement in Merger Litigation: An Empirical Analysis and a Proposal for Reform

Shareholder litigation challenging corporate mergers is ubiquitous, with the likelihood of a shareholder suit exceeding 90%. The value of this litigation, however, is questionable. The vast majority of merger cases settle for nothing more than supplemental disclosures in the merger proxy statement. The attorneys that bring these lawsuits are compensated for their efforts with a court-awarded fee. This leads critics to charge that merger litigation benefits only the lawyers who bring the claims, not the shareholders they represent. In response, defenders of merger litigation argue that the lawsuits serve a useful oversight function and that the improved disclosures that result are beneficial to shareholders. This Article offers a new approach to assessing the value of these claims by empirically testing the relationship between merger litigation and shareholder voting on the merger. If the supplemental disclosures produced by the settlement of merger litigation are valuable, they should affect shareholder voting behavior. Specifically, supplemental disclosures that are, in effect, “compelled” by settlement should produce new and unfavorable information about the merger and lead to a lower percentage of shares voted in favor of it. Applying this hypothesis to a hand-collected sample of 453 large public company mergers from 2005-2012, we find no such effect. We find no significant evidence that disclosure-only settlements affect shareholder voting. These findings warrant a reconsideration of Delaware merger law. Specifically, under current law, supplemental disclosures are viewed by courts as providing a substantial benefit to the shareholder class. In turn, this substantial benefit entitles the plaintiffs’ lawyers to an award of attorneys’ fees. Our evidence suggests that this legal analysis is misguided and that supplemental disclosures do not in fact constitute a substantial benefit. As a result, and in light of the substantial costs generated by public company merger litigation, we argue that courts should reject disclosure settlements as a basis for attorney fee awards. Our approach responds to critiques of merger litigation as excessive and frivolous by reducing the incentive for plaintiffs’ lawyers to bring weak cases, but it would have an additional benefit. Current practice drags state court judges into the task of indirectly promulgating disclosure standards in connection with the approval of fee awards. We argue, instead, for a more efficient specialization between state and federal courts in the regulation of mergers: public company merger disclosure should be policed by the federal securities laws while state corporate law focuses on substantive fairness

Fear of Crime, Incivilities, and Collective Efficacy in Four Miami Neighborhoods

Purpose: Extant literature indicates that individual perceptions of collective efficacy and incivilities are important in explaining fear of crime. These studies, however, often implicitly assume that the relationships between key variables do not differ between neighborhoods. The purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between perceptions of collective efficacy, perceptions of incivilities, and fear of crime and determine whether these relationships are constant between neighborhoods. Methods: Surveys were conducted using a sample of residents from four neighborhoods within Miami-Dade County. Structural equation models were used to examine the relationships between perceptions of collective efficacy, perceptions of incivilities, and fear of crime for each neighborhood separately. Tests for invariance were conducted to determine whether the coefficients from these models differed across neighborhoods. Results: Results from these analyses suggest that the relationship between perceptions of collective efficacy and fear of crime exhibit significant heterogeneity between neighborhoods, as do a number of other relationships. The relationships between perceptions of collective efficacy and perceptions of incivilities, and perceptions of incivilities and fear of crime do not exhibit heterogeneity. Conclusions: These results illustrate the importance of examining perceptions of collective efficacy within the neighborhood context. Implications for policy and future research are discusse

Electron impact promoted fragmentation of alkyl-N-(1-Phenylethyl)-carbamates of primary, secondary and tertiary alcohols

Mass spectra of alkyl carbamates derived from primary, secondary, and teriary alcohols by use of deuterium labeling and high resolution mass spectroscop

Application of remote sensing to state and regional problems

There are no author-identified significant results in this report

The Molecular Interstellar Medium in Ultraluminous Infrared Galaxies

We present CO observations of a large sample of ultraluminous IR galaxies out to z = 0.3. Most of the galaxies are interacting, but not completed mergers. All but one have high CO(1-0) luminosities, log(Lco [K-km/s-pc^2]) = 9.92 +/- 0.12. The dispersion in Lco is only 30%, less than that in the FIR luminosity. The integrated CO intensity correlates Strongly with the 100 micron flux density, as expected for a black body model in which the mid and far IR radiation are optically thick. We use this model to derive sizes of the FIR and CO emitting regions and the enclosed dynamical masses. Both the IR and CO emission originate in regions a few hundred parsecs in radius. The median value of Lfir/Lco = 160 Lsun/(K-km/s-pc^2), within a factor of two of the black body limit for the observed FIR temperatures. The entire ISM is a scaled up version of a normal galactic disk with densities a factor of 100 higher, making even the intercloud medium a molecular region. Using three different techniques of H2 mass estimation, we conclude that the ratio of gas mass to Lco is about a factor of four lower than for Galactic molecular clouds, but that the gas mass is a large fraction of the dynamical mass. Our analysis of CO emission reduces the H2 mass from previous estimates of 2-5e10 Msun to 0.4-1.5e10 Msun, which is in the range found for molecular gas rich spiral galaxies. A collision involving a molecular gas rich spiral could lead to an ultraluminous galaxy powered by central starbursts triggered by the compression of infalling preexisting GMC's.Comment: 34 pages LaTeX with aasms.sty, 14 Postscript figures, submitted to ApJ Higher quality versions of Figs 2a-f and 7a-c available by anonymous FTP from ftp://sbast1.ess.sunysb.edu/solomon/

Optical Spectroscopy of Disordered Materials and X-Ray Scattering from Surfaces

Contains reports on two research projects.Joint Services Electronics Program (Contract DAAG29-83-K-0003

Time-Resolved Spectroscopy of Condensed Matter

Contains a report on one research project.Joint Services Electronics Program (Contract DAAG29-80-C-0104)National Science Foundation (Grant DMR78-23555