Does Observation Create Reality?

It has been suggested that the locality of information transfer in quantum entanglement indicates that reality is subjective, meaning that there is an innate inseparability between the physical system and the conscious mind of the observer. This paper attempts to outline the relation between macroscopic and microscopic worlds in the measurement process in regards to whether observation creates reality. Indeed, the Maxwell's demon thought experiment suggests a correlation between a microscopic (quantum) system and a macroscopic (classical) apparatus, which leads to an energy transfer from the quantum vacuum to the physical world, similar to particle creation from a vacuum. This explanation shows that observation in quantum theory conserves, rather than creates, energy.Comment: 5 pages, 6 figure

How to create a universe

The purpose of this paper is (i) to expound the specification of a universe, according to those parts of mathematical physics which have been experimentally and observationally verified in our own universe; and (ii) to expound the possible means of creating a universe in the laboratory

Can the Universe Create Itself?

The question of first-cause has troubled philosophers and cosmologists alike. Now that it is apparent that our universe began in a Big Bang explosion, the question of what happened before the Big Bang arises. Inflation seems like a very promising answer, but as Borde and Vilenkin have shown, the inflationary state preceding the Big Bang must have had a beginning also. Ultimately, the difficult question seems to be how to make something out of nothing. This paper explores the idea that this is the wrong question --- that that is not how the Universe got here. Instead, we explore the idea of whether there is anything in the laws of physics that would prevent the Universe from creating itself. Because spacetimes can be curved and multiply connected, general relativity allows for the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs). Thus, tracing backwards in time through the original inflationary state we may eventually encounter a region of CTCs giving no first-cause. This region of CTCs, may well be over by now (being bounded toward the future by a Cauchy horizon). We illustrate that such models --- with CTCs --- are not necessarily inconsistent by demonstrating self-consistent vacuums for Misner space and a multiply connected de Sitter space in which the renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not diverge as one approaches the Cauchy horizon and solves Einstein's equations. We show such a Universe can be classically stable and self-consistent if and only if the potentials are retarded, giving a natural explanation of the arrow of time. Some specific scenarios (out of many possible ones) for this type of model are described. For example: an inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself. Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own mother.Comment: 48 pages, 8 figure

Can Computers Create Art?

This essay discusses whether computers, using Artificial Intelligence (AI), could create art. First, the history of technologies that automated aspects of art is surveyed, including photography and animation. In each case, there were initial fears and denial of the technology, followed by a blossoming of new creative and professional opportunities for artists. The current hype and reality of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools for art making is then discussed, together with predictions about how AI tools will be used. It is then speculated about whether it could ever happen that AI systems could be credited with authorship of artwork. It is theorized that art is something created by social agents, and so computers cannot be credited with authorship of art in our current understanding. A few ways that this could change are also hypothesized.Comment: to appear in Arts, special issue on Machine as Artist (21st Century

Create your ORCID iD: how to sign up for an ORCID iD

You can register for an ORCID iD at https://orcid.org/register. All of the information entered during registration can later be updated by updating your personal information on your ORCID record or under your account settings

Writing About Comics and Copyright

Academics who research and write about the visual world often complain about the way in which copyright law can hinder their scholarly endeavours, and with good reason. Writing about visual work without reproducing that work is an impoverished exercise, for both writer and reader. But, reproducing visual material can trigger concerns on the part of the conscientious author or – more often – demands on the part of the publisher about the need to secure copyright permission. In this respect, comics scholarship is no different from any other field of visual or cultural studies. Clearing rights for publication can be frustrating and time-consuming, and academic publishers often manage the business of copyright clearance by making their authors responsible for securing permissions. European Comic Art provides a good example. When an article is accepted for publication, authors are ‘required to submit copyright agreements and all necessary permission letters for reprinting or modifying copyrighted materials, both textual and graphic’, and are ‘responsible for obtaining all permissions and clearing any associated fees.’ Not all publishers, however, adhere to such a black and white position. The Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics is published by Taylor & Francis. In the ‘Authors Services’ section of their website, the publisher acknowledges that reproducing short extracts of text and other types of material ‘for the purposes of criticism may be possible without formal permission’. To better understand when permission is needed, the publisher directs its authors to the Publishers Association’s Permissions Guidelines. To better understand what rights need to be cleared, authors are directed to the publisher’s own FAQs about using third-party material in an academic article. Thirteen of the publisher’s FAQs expressly relate to the reproduction of visual material, and of those only two concede the possibility of reproducing work without permission (they relate to, respectively, the use of ‘screenshots or grabs of film or video’ and the use of ‘very old paintings’). What is not clear from the FAQs document is whether the publisher is purporting to accurately represent the law in this area. If so – as we shall see – the FAQs document is clearly deficient. If, however, Taylor & Francis is simply using the FAQs document to set out the parameters of its own editorial policy on the reproduction of copyright-protected third-party material, then so be it: the publisher is perfectly entitled to adopt such editorial guidelines as it sees fit. I would suggest, though, that in cleaving to an editorial policy that fails to take full advantage of the scope which the copyright regime allows for the lawful reproduction of copyright-protected material without need for permission, the publisher is missing an opportunity to enable and encourage its contributors to augment and enrich comics scholarship as a discipline. It is in this respect that The Comics Grid is more ambitious and forward-thinking: it actively promotes the lawful use of copyright-protected content for the purposes of academic scholarship. The journal’s copyright policy sets out that third-party images are reproduced on the basis of ‘educational fair use’, with readers and contributors directed to Columbia University Libraries’ Fair Use Checklist for further information. This is a checklist that has been developed to help academics and other scholars make a reasonable and balanced determination about whether their use of copyright-protected work is permissible under s.107 of the US Copyright Act 1976: the fair use provision. Obviously, The Comics Grid locates its copyright advice within the context of US copyright law. But, as a Glasgow-based academic, with an interest in both the history and the current state of the UK copyright regime, my particular focus within this comic concerns the extent to which academics – or indeed anyone interested in writing about comics – can rely upon UK copyright law to reproduce extracts and excerpts from published comics and graphic novels without having to ask the copyright owner for permission. To address that issue we must consider three key questions. What constitutes ‘a work’ protected by copyright within the context of comics publishing? What does it mean to speak of ‘insubstantial copying’ from a copyright-protected comic? And what can be copied lawfully from a comic for the purpose of criticism and review

Does Globalization Create Superstars?

To examine the impact of globalization on managerial compensation, we consider a matching model where a number of firms compete both in the product market and in the managerial market. We show that globalization, i.e. the simultaneous integration of product markets and managerial pools, leads to an increase in the heterogeneity of managerial salaries. Typically, while the most able managers obtain a wage increase, less able managers are faced with a reduction in wages. Hence our model can explain the increasing heterogeneity of CEO compensation that has been observed in the last few decades.Globalization, manager remuneration, superstars

The Future Implications of the Usedsoft Decision

Those were the days! Up to a decade ago exhaustion in copyright was strictly limited to the distribution of (multiple) hard copies of copyright works. Anything else was considered to be outside the exhaustion rules. E.g. multiple showings of a movie in movie theatres was seen as the essence of movie copyright and exhaustion had therefore no role to play in that area according to the Coditeldecision. [1] How wrong were we though when we assumed that the digital revolution that turned so many things upside down in copyright would have no impact in this area. Admittedly, the decoder cases [2] were potentially only about hard copies. Hard copies in the sense of cards for decoders for satellite broadcasts of football matches could easily be subjected to the exhaustion rules that enforce the free movement of goods provisions of the EU Treaty. But if the decoder cards that had been obtained in Greece could be used in the UK, such use gave access to the broadcasts. The real impetus to accept this and to breach the uncontested logic of the Coditel approach may have been in competition law in the decoder cases, but they show clearly that the logic of copyright is not the dominant factor in the digital era. [3] That dominance is on the basis of the EU Treaty given to the rules on free movement and on competition law. Usedsoft [4] clearly fits in with that evolution. The Usedsoft v Oracle case [5] was all about computer software wich Oracle develops and markets. Oracle is the proprietor of the exclusive user rights under copyright law in those programs. It distributes the software at issue in 85% of cases by downloading from the internet. The customer downloads a copy of the software directly to his computer from Oracle’s website. The user right for such a program, which is granted by a licence agreement, includes the right to store a copy of the program permanently on a server and to allow a certain number of users to access it by downloading it to the main memory of their work-station computers. UsedSoft markets used software licences, including user licences for Oracle computer programs. For that purpose UsedSoft acquires from customers of Oracle such user licences, or parts of them, where the original licences relate to a greater number of users than required by the first acquirer. Usedsoft’s practices involve the making of a copy of the computer program, which raises the question of the infringement of the right of reproduction. A further question that arises is whether the right to distribute a copy of the computer program is exhausted. A positive answer to the question may help to justify Usedsoft’s business model. And effectively, in the CJEU’s judgment one see the application of exhaustion rules, despite the absence of a sale of hard copies. But the special rules that are contained in the software Directive are, for fairly obvious reasons, rather omnipresent in the decision. Could it therefore be that Usedsoft is entirely software specific [6] and that even in that context a small change to existing business practices can overcome the impact of the decision? Or is this only a first example of the exhaustion logic to come and will the Court of Justice of the European Union apply the same logic to other copyright works? On-line distribution of music and licences granting access to on-line databases are then obvious candidates that attract attention. In essence I am asked whether I have a crystal ball and whether I can gaze in it. The straightforward answer is that I do not have a crystal ball. But let me nevertheless try to identify some guiding principles. [1] Case 62/79 Coditel SA v Ciné Vog Films SA [1980] ECR 881. [2] Case C-403/08 Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure and Case C-429/08 Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd [2012] FSR 1, [2012] 1 CMLR 29. [3] For a fuller analysis, see P. Torremans, Holyoak and Torremans Intellectual Property Law, OUP (7th ed, 2013), pp. 344-349. [4] Case C-128/11 Usedsoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp., [2012] 3 CMLR 44, [2012] ECDR 19 and [2013] RPC 6. [5] Ibid. [6] In the first two cases that followed the CJEU’s decision the German Courts seem to give an affirmative answer to this question. The OLG Frankfurt confined the decision to cases based on the Software Directive (which was treated as lex specialis in relation to the Information Society Directive), see OLG Frankfurt, 18th December 2012 -11 U 68/11, [2013] GRUR 279-285. And the LG Bielefeld explicitly refused to apply the Usedsoftapproach to the on-line distribution of e-books, as the Software Directive did not apply to that case, see LG Bielefeld, 5th March 2013, [2013] GRUR Prax 207 (summary)

Strategies adopted to create relative advantage

The aim of this research is to understand the strategies being currently adopted and those which can be adopted to increase operating efficiency in an organisation. The research includes the background and SWOT analysis of the organisation to better understand the business environment. The scope of the research signifies the areas that have been investigated in the research to answer the question asked in the aim. These areas include relative advantage, customer analysis and management of human resources. These areas are explained in detail in the literature review which gives useful insight into the business strategies of the organisation. After the literature review, information regarding the method adopted to conduct the research and why it is adopted is discussed. A results section shows all the information obtained and graphs prepared from conducting the surveys and interviews. These are further analysed in detail in the discussion that follows

Do California's Enterprise Zones Create Jobs?

Examines how the state's enterprise zone program, which offered incentives in economically distressed areas, affected job and business creation in 1992-2004. Considers elements of relative success such as marketing and outreach and suggests improvements