Cross-sections, The Bruce Hall Academic Journal: Volume II, 2006
iCROSS-SECTIONSTHE BRUCE HALL ACADEMIC JOURNALVOLUME II 2006
iiCROSS-SECTIONS: THE BRUCE HALL ACADEMIC JOURNAL is an annual student-runpublication of Bruce Hall and The Australian National University.Bruce HallBuilding 40, Daley RoadThe Australian National UniversityCanberra ACT 0200Fax: 61 2 6125 6010Web: http://brucehall.anu.edu.auEmail: Published by ANU E PressThe Australian National UniversityCanberra ACT 0200, AustraliaEmail: anuepress@anu.edu.auThis title is also available online at: http://epress.anu.edu.au/cs02 citation.htmlOpinions published in Cross-sections: The Bruce Hall Academic Journal do not necessarilyrepresent those of Bruce Hall, The Australian National University, the Editors or Sub-Editors.All abstracts included in this journal are written by the authors of the pieces they refer to.The referencing style in this volume has been standardised across all disciplines forreadability, and was applied in accordance with the Australian Government PublishingService’s Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers, 6th edn, Australian GovernmentPublishing Service, Canberra, 2002.All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopyingor otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.Cover Image: ‘ACTS’, 2006Patrick Holloway (Digital Piece)Printed by University Printing Services, ANUTypeset in Palatino Linotype, 10ptISSN: 1832-9578COPYRIGHT 2006 Bruce Hall & The Australian National University.COPYRIGHT 2007 ANU E Press
EDITORIAL TEAMEditorsMichelle AlmirónCharles Prestidge‐KingSkye RobertsSub‐EditorsJosé BasuttoNaomi BrodieCaroline DubsNora JainCatherine StapyltonBalwinder KaurDesmond KoKatrina StoupposAndrew WillcocksTechnical EditorSamuel Lewin
ACADEMIC ADVISORSDR BROK GLENNDirector of Policy and PlanningOffice of the Vice ChancellorThe Australian National UniversityPROF. PENNY OAKESPro Vice Chancellor (University Community)Office of the Vice ChancellorThe Australian National UniversityPROF. COLIN TATZVisiting FellowSchool of Social SciencesFaculty of ArtsCollege of Arts and Social SciencesThe Australian National University
ACADEMIC REFEREESDR CAROLYN BEHM, FASPLeader, Nematode Molecular Genetics GroupSchool of Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyCollege of ScienceThe Australian National UniversityMS JACQUELINE BIRTLecturer in AccountingSchool of Accounting and Business Information SystemsCollege of Business and EconomicsThe Australian National UniversityDR CHRISTOPHER BRADDICKVisiting Fellow, Department of International RelationsResearch School of Pacific and Asian StudiesCollege of Asia and the PacificThe Australian National UniversityDR TONY CONNOLLYSenior Lecturer in LawSchool of LawCollege of LawThe Australian National UniversityDR ELISABETH FINDLAYAssociate Lecturer in Art HistorySchool of HumanitiesFaculty of ArtsCollege of Arts and Social SciencesThe Australian National UniversityDR ROGER HILLMANHead of Film StudiesSchool of HumanitiesFaculty of ArtsCollege of Arts and Social SciencesThe Australian National University
DR FIONA JENKINSLecturer in PhilosophySchool of HumanitiesFaculty of ArtsCollege of Arts and Social SciencesThe Australian National UniversityDR ANDREW MCWILLIAMFellow, Department of AnthropologyResearch School of Pacific and Asian StudiesCollege of Asia and the PacificThe Australian National UniversityDR ELIZABETH MINCHINSenior Lecturer in ClassicsSchool of Language StudiesFaculty of ArtsCollege of Arts and Social SciencesThe Australian National UniversityDR IAN MORGANAssociate Director, Research School of Biological SciencesHead, Retina and Myopia Research LaboratoryARC Centre for Excellence in Vision ScienceCollege of ScienceThe Australian National UniversityDR RICH PASCALSenior Lecturer in EnglishSchool of HumanitiesFaculty of ArtsCollege of Arts and Social SciencesThe Australian National UniversityPROF CHRISTIAN REUS‐SMITProfessor and Head, Department of International RelationsDeputy Director, Research School of Pacific and Asian StudiesCollege of Asia and the PacificThe Australian National University
MR MICHAEL SLOANEPhD Candidate and Lecturer in PhilosophySchool of HumanitiesFaculty of ArtsCollege of Arts and Social SciencesThe Australian National UniversityDR DOUGLAS STURKEYVisiting FellowCentre for Arabic and Islamic Studies(The Middle East and Central Asia)Faculty of ArtsCollege of Arts and Social SciencesThe Australian National UniversitySUSAN TRIDGELLVisiting FellowSchool of HumanitiesFaculty of ArtsCollege of Arts and Social SciencesThe Australian National UniversityPROF DAYAL WICKRAMASINGHEProfessor, Department of MathematicsConvenor of Astronomy and AstrophysicsMathematical Sciences InstituteCollege of ScienceThe Australian National University
TABLE OF CONTENTSFOREWORD / xiiiDr Dierdre PearceEDITORIAL / xvMichelle Almirón, Charles Prestidge‐King & Skye RobertsCOMPETING THEORIES, EMERGING EVIDENCE:THE METAPHYSICAL IMPLICATIONS OF QUANTUM THEORY / 1Melanie Bannister‐TyrrellTRUTH, FICTION, TRADITION: HOMER AND TROY / 11Russell BuzbyARCHITECTURAL BOUNDARIES:LUDWIG MIES VAN DER ROHE AND PHILIP JOHNSON / 35Lorna ClarkeDRACULA AND THE NEW WOMAN:THE UNDERLYING THREAT IN BRAM STOKER’S CLASSIC / 47Suzanne DixonGLOBAL CITIZENS OR THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF BECOMING MEMBERS OF ASINGLE UNIVERSAL TRIBE / 57Gilberto Estrada HarrisEARNINGS MANAGEMENT IN CORPORATE ACCOUNTING:AN OVERVIEW / 81Alexandra FongWESTERN PENETRATION OF THE PERSIAN GULF OIL RESERVES / 97James NewtonARTWORK DETAILS / 107 FROM THE SAME TREE / 111Gaurav Bhatnagar
TWO ROOMS: SIMULACRA, AND THE PASSAGE BETWEEN THE REAL / 112Catherine BrownscombeHOUSE OF CARDS / 113Chris CookEXQUISITE FORMS / 114Jack FongLINKS / 115Samuel LewinDRAGON / 115Ru Gway WuCAN YOU HEAR ME?: 4 / 116Katie RyanTHE FARNSWORTH HOUSE, DESIGNED BY MIES VAN DER ROHE / 117Photograph to accompany Lorna Clarke’s essayGLASS HOUSE, DESIGNED BY PHILIP JOHNSON / 117Photograph to accompany Lorna Clarke’s essaySTILL FROM CHINATOWN, DIRECTED BY ROMAN POLANSKI / 118Still to accompany Katie Ryan’s essayTHE ROLE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITIONTO THE INDONESIAN OCCUPATION OF EAST TIMOR (1975‐1999) / 119Daniel PascoeRE‐ALTERING THE CONSTELLATION:THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HEIDEGGER’S THOUGHTS ON HISTORICITY / 133Charles Prestidge‐King
A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION: WHY THE US VIEW SHOULDNOT BE THE ONLY UNDERSTANDING OF NORTHEAST ASIA / 145Sonya RussellTHE CIRCLING, SHADES AND SHADOWS OFROMAN POLANSKI’S CHINATOWN / 159Katie RyanAN AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERIENCE / 167Timothy VinesMOTIVATION VIA LOSS: WORDSWORTH AND MODERNITY / 179Andrew WillcocksIS LEFT‐HANDEDNESS A RESULT OF NEGATIVE FREQUENCY SELECTION? / 185Laurence WilsonTHE RATE OF TYROSINASE REACTION AND ITS ACTIVITY INPOTATO AND BANANA / 195Karen J. Zhang
FOREWORDPreparing a piece of writing for publication takes a great deal ofcommittment, enterprise and enthusiasm. This volume represents thecombined energies of a group of more than 60 authors, editors, artists,and researchers associated with Bruce Hall and the ANU. At a time inwhich students and staff at universities need to juggle competingactivities such as employment, teaching, study, sporting, social andfamily commitments; why have so many people chosen to collaborateon such a challenging project? Because it is an opportunity to create something new incollaboration with a group of like‐minded people. Because it is a chance for students to learn about the process ofpublication. Because it is an opportunity for an academic to work closely with anundergraduate student, a rarity in these days of increasingly largetutorial groups. Because it is a challenging, interesting way to learn vital researchskills. Because it is a way of integrating a variety of university experiencesinto a tangible product. Beacause it is a way of creating an intellectual environment whichnourishes learning and encourages meaningful interactions betweenstaff and students. Because it is an immensely satisfying experience.Two central roles of residential colleges are to provide students with awelcoming community and an environment that encourages andrewards learning. In the United States, the idea of residential colleges as’residential learning communities’ is gaining currency and this journalencorporates some of the features of the activities used to createlearning communities in some American colleges; in particular, studentsand staff of the university are linked together by shared activities.Cross‐sections and its contributors, however, differ from the USexperience in a key aspect: in the American schools, students and staffare linked through the course(s) in which the students are enrolled and
EDITORIALMany have said that to write is human, but to edit is divine. If so, ourpath to divinity has taught us much. The editorial process requiresmany late nights, strong coffee, pizza and a sense of humour. It hasbeen a hard taskmaster, teaching us many things: to be concise, to bediplomatic, to be organised, but above all, to be mean.And yet, still with spirit and optimism, we bring to you Volume II ofCross‐sections: The Bruce Hall Academic Journal.It has been an experience both rewarding and interesting where wehave found our own unique positions within the framework of thejournal: Skye, the unexpected disciplinarian; Michelle, the logisticalmastermind; and Charles, the eternal pedant (who, the night beforefinal proof, was still firing off instructions from his hospital bed).Being part of Cross‐sections; another link in the chain, has been anhonour. Last year’s editors have passed on the torch to us, and we feelprivileged to carry it forward to next year’s editorial team. However,before we do so, there are many people who have accompanied us onthis journey.We would like to thank Dr Dierdre Pearce for supporting andpioneering such an admirable project. And once again, the Office of ViceChancellor, and most particularly Dr Brok Glenn, for continuing toencourage student initiative and for his generous financial support forthe project. Thank you also to our many academic referees, whodonated time from otherwise extremely busy schedules to offerguidance to our contributors and to help shape the pieces included intofully realised academic works.We owe a debt of gratitude to last year’s Editors for paving the way andfor establishing the framework of this journal. We would also like toespecially thank our sub‐editors for their unflagging efforts in helpingto make this project a reality. And where would we be without ourinfallible Technical Editor, Sam Lewin, with his trusty laptop and
unwavering positive disposition? Also, the night before final proof, ourproofreaders showed us an internal fortitude worthy of any greatTolkien character. Finally, without the contributors we would not havea journal. Their creative spark and academic endeavours have enrichedthis journal, and in turn, the wider learning community at Bruce Hall.In this year’s journal, we have a variety of pieces, with nearly allColleges at the ANU being represented. The quality of submissions wasexcellent and a final selection was extremely difficult to make.However, we present 15 unique pieces in this volume of the journal,ranging from an exploration of quantum theory to the battle of Troy,and to an investigation of the rise of Western influence in the MiddleEast. The Bruce Hall community is also fortunate to have a wealth ofartistic talent, and this year’s selection spans a range of media, includingphotography, digital art and installation artwork.Finally, as we succumb to our weariness and lay down our pens (orlaptops), we step down from our editorial role with a mimosa in ourhand, and a sense of satisfaction knowing that we were part of anamazing team. Enjoy!Michelle Almirón, Charles Prestidge‐King& Skye RobertsThe 2006 Editors of Cross‐sections
COMPETING THEORIES, EMERGING EVIDENCE: THEMETAPHYSICAL IMPLICATIONS OF QUANTUM THEORYMelanie Bannister‐Tyrrell Philosophy and physics combine in the interpretation of the universe throughthe lens of quantum theory. The advancement of quantum theory is dependenton a coherent interpretation of its metaphysical considerations. Two distinctschools have emerged that attempt to justify the state of the quantum universe:the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many Worlds Interpretation. Untilrecently, experimental differentiation of the two models of the universe wasinconceivable. This essay attempts to give an overview of the current debate,with reference to emerging ideas in quantum cosmology and thereconsideration of quantum non‐locality. This essay also attempts to show thatpreliminary indications support the Many Worlds Interpretation as a definitivemodel of the Universe.Quantum theory has revealed the microscopic world to be truly strange.It has shattered the foundation of two thousand years of progress inphysics, and shown the pioneering work of Newton and even Einsteinto be a limiting case of a much greater theory that shares little incommon with its classical predecessor. Quantum theory has brokenwith the Laplacian deterministic model of the Universe, replacing itwith intrinsic uncertainty and counterintuitive dualities. As amathematical model of the Universe, quantum theory is immenselypowerful: the statistical predictions of quantum theory have been testedto within one part in ten billion.1 Quantum theory accurately explainsphenomena such as electricity and nuclear reactions and is routinelyused in computing and engineering applications.2 Yet competinginterpretations of quantum theory exist, most notably the Copenhagen Melanie Bannister‐Tyrrell is in her first year of a Bachelor of Philosophy(Science) degree at the Australian National University and is a current residentof Bruce Hall.12M Kaku, Parallel world, 1st edn, Doubleday, New York, 2005, p. 153.P Davies, ‘The quantum factor’, God and the new physics, Dent, London, 1983, p. 101.
2Cross‐sections Volume II 2006Interpretation and the Many Worlds interpretation. This essay willfocus on an examination of the two schools of thought and highlightrecent theoretical developments that provide tentative support for theMany Worlds Interpretation.Introduction to Quantum TheoryWave‐particle duality is defined by the de Broglie wave equation, whichstates that every particle has an associated wavelength. Light, forexample, can be described in terms of discrete packets of energy (latercalled photons). The wavelength of a particle becomes significant whenthe mass of the particle is extremely small and thus is not observed inthe macroscopic world. Complementarity describes the principle that‘reality’ exists as conjugate variables that are linked throughHeisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Examples of conjugate variablesinclude position‐momentum and wave‐particle duality. Any experimentdesigned to accurately measure one variable excludes the possibility ofsimultaneous measurement of its conjugate variable.3. The wavefunction of a particle is a probability function, and as such is amathematical superposition of all possible quantum states of thatparticle. Mathematically, the wave function evolves in a deterministicway; however, the physical nature of the wave function is yet to beresolved. The metaphysical implications of distinct interpretations ofthe wave function have been a principal topic of debate since theinception of quantum theory.The Copenhagen Interpretation and Many Worlds Interpretation offerthe most rigorous formulations of the quantum universe. TheCopenhagen Interpretation is an anti‐realist explanation of the universefundamentally dependent on the act of observation. It presents a ‘singlehistory’ view of the world in which elementary particles exist aspotentialities and are actualised through measurement.4 The variousJ Faye, ‘Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics’, in EN Zalata (ed.), TheStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2002 Edition).4 D Page, ‘Can quantum cosmology give observational consequences of Many WorldsQuantum theory?’, in 8th Canadian Conference on General Relativity and RelativisticAstrophysics, General relativity and relativistic astrophysics, Montreal, 1999, pp. 225‐232.3
Metaphysical Implications of Quantum Theory Melanie Bannister‐Tyrrell3Many Worlds theories present a deterministic view of the Universebased on the realisation of all possible quantum outcomes of anexperiment in distinct parallel worlds. The observer does not assume aprivileged position within Many Worlds theories.5Until recently, it was widely held by the international physicscommunity that the differences between the Copenhagen and ManyWorlds interpretations were purely metaphysical: no experiment couldempirically distinguish between the two theories.6 However, a re‐examination of Bell’s Theorem and recent developments in quantumcosmology are providing speculative evidence in support of ManyWorlds theories.The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory proposes thecollapse of the wave function as the mechanism by which reality springsinto concrete existence.7 The wave function is collapsed by the act ofobservation.8 The state in which an elementary particle materialisesdepends on the nature of the observation. Bohr, Schrödinger,Heisenberg and Born championed this interpretation.9 Bohr postulatedthat the wave function was not physically real, and noted that theinclusion of imaginary quantities in the mathematical formalisation ofquantum theory reduced the concept of the wave function to a symbolicrepresentation for calculating the probability amplitude for the outcomeof experiments.10 Prior to measurement, elementary particles exist asghosts or potentialities, a superposition of complementary variables.11An observation forces the collapse of the wave function, resulting in themanifestation of the particle in a determinate form. The CopenhagenInterpretation posits the observer external to the quantum world such5 Note that in this essay, references to the ‘Many Worlds Interpretation’ are referring to theEveritt‐De‐Witt – Graham version and all subsequent modifications.6 Page, General relativity and relativistic astrophysics, pp. 225‐232.7 Faye.8 ibid.9 Kaku, pp. 151‐52.10 Faye.11 Davies, p. 103.
4Cross‐sections Volume II 2006that the observer exists in the macroscopic world where classicalphysics essentially holds.12The Many Worlds Interpretation was first proposed by Everett in 1957and popularised in the Everett‐DeWitt‐Graham version13. The ManyWorlds Interpretation assumes that the laws of quantum theory applyequally to the observed as well as the observer.14 The inevitableimplication is that an observer can be considered as a quantum entity,and thus exists in a superposition of possible quantum states. Theclassical world does not exist even at the macroscopic level. In the ManyWorlds Interpretation, the wave function is real but does not collapse asa result of observation. Every outcome of non‐zero probability of aquantum interaction occurs, via decoherence of the probabilistic statesof the elements involved into parallel worlds.15 Once separated, theworlds cannot interact. The state of existence of elementary particlesthus depends on the world in which the observation occurs. In ManyWorlds theories, the probability of a quantum event translates to ameasure of the magnitude of the world in which the event in questionoccurs, the ‘measure of existence’.16 Steven Weinberg describes theMany Worlds Interpretation using the analogy of tuning in to a radiostation.17 Despite the multitude of radio‐frequency signals that pervademost space on Earth, only one frequency can be tuned in to at one time.Thus we can only ‘tune’ into one Universe of infinitely many withinwhat has come to be known as the Multiverse.FJ Tipler, ‘Does quantum non‐locality exist? Bell’s Theorem and the Many WorldsInterpretation’, Quantum Physics, Abstracts, arXiv:quant‐ph/0003146, 2000.13 Page, General relativity and relativistic astrophysics, pp. 225‐232.14 Tipler, arXiv:quant‐ph/0003146.15 V Lev, ‘Many‐Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics’ in EN Zalata (ed.), TheStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2002 Edition).16 D Page, General relativity and relativistic astrophysics, pp. 225‐232.17 Kaku, p. 170.12
Metaphysical Implications of Quantum Theory Melanie Bannister‐Tyrrell5Quantum Non‐localityThe Copenhagen InterpretationThe Einstein‐Podolsky‐Rosen paradox was formulated to challenge theCopenhagen doctrine that the physical properties of quantum particlesare actualised through observation, and thus have no observer‐independent reality.18 The Gedanken can be summarised as follows:assume that you have a coupled photon system with a net spin angularmomentum of zero.19 The photons are decoupled and allowed to traveluntil they are a considerable distance apart. Let one photon be locatedin region A and the second in region B. The ingenuity of the experimentlies in the assumption that if you can measure the spin of the photon inregion A, by conservation of spin angular momentum, the spin ofphoton in region B can be known instantaneously. Therefore, theprinciple of non‐locality must be applied to the problem to obtain aconsistent solution. The paradox is highly problematic for quantumtheory, due in large part to the implication that information must havetravelled faster than the speed of light, violating special relativity.20 Italso forces quantum mechanics to depart from the locality principle ofclassical physics, a principle assumed to be as fundamental as theGalilean relativity. Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen assumed that ‘action ata distance’ was an absurd result and concluded that the photon inregion B must have had definite spin independent of observation.21Hence quantum mechanics provides an incomplete description of thedeterministic physical world.Einstein’s solution was to postulate the existence of subquantum theoryand invoke the notion of ‘hidden variables’ that interacted withmicroscopic particles.22 He believed that a developed hidden variablestheory would provide statistical predictions identical to those ofND Mermin, ‘Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory’,in R Boyd, P Gasper & JD Trout (eds), The Philosophy of Science, MIT Press, Cambridge,1991, pp. 501‐16.19 ibid.20 Tipler, arXiv:quant‐ph/0003146.21 Mermin, p. 501.22 Kaku, p. 175.18
6Cross‐sections Volume II 2006quantum mechanics but remove quantum uncertainty from theframework of physics. Bohr counters Einstein’s conclusion by denyingthat the two particles are separated, arguing that until an observation ismade that the two particles exist as a single potentiality and interactaccordingly when the first measurement of spin occurs.23John Bell conceived of a decisive test in the 1960s to distinguishexperimentally between the predictions of quantum mechanics andthose of hidden variables theories.24 Bell’s discovery was that the levelof correlation between the two spatially separated particles was limitedby an upper bound if hidden variables existed. If quantum mechanicsfully described the microscopic world, this upper bound did not exist25.Bell’s Theorem, or Bell’s Inequality, became the most important theoremin quantum physics for the remainder of the 20th century.26Authoritative experimental testing of Bell’s Theorem was conducted inthe early 1980s.27 Hidden variables theories were repeatedly discredited,leading to the inevitable conclusion that quantum non‐locality was yetanother bizarre aspect of the quantum world.Many Worlds InterpretationQuantum non‐locality remains an uneasy aspect of quantum theory.However, it can be abolished if Bell’s Theorem is reinterpreted withinthe definitions of the Many Worlds Interpretation. Tipler presents amathematical argument that demonstrates that if two observers happento record identical directions for the spin measurement of the separatedphotons, the observers will bifurcate into two worlds.28 Themathematical formalism of Tipler’s argument is beyond the scope ofthis essay, but it is suffice to say that, in each world, the observers willrecord opposite spin projections for each photon. Locality is hencepreserved because all possible outcomes of the quantum experiment areDavies, p. 105.Mermin, p. 503.25 Davies, p. 105.26 G Zukav, The dancing Wu‐Li masters – An overview of the new physics, Morrow, New York,1979, p. 282; cited in Mermin, p. 504.27 Davies, p. 106.28 Tipler, arXiv:quant‐ph/0003146.2324
Metaphysical Implications of Quantum Theory Melanie Bannister‐Tyrrell7actualised independently of the measurement of either photon.Furthermore, Tipler argues that a third measurement takes place withinthe Many Worlds Interpretation. The comparison of the two spinmeasurements after the measurement has occurred critically confirmsthe original splitting and thus the zero spin angular momentum finalstate in each parallel world. In Bell’s original paper, the thirdmeasurement is not considered to be a quantum interaction as it takesplace in the macroscopic (classical) world. Furthermore, Bell’s theoremrelies on the collapse of the wave function to derive the inequality. Thusquantum non‐locality appears to apply only if the Universe has aunique, universal, single history, as the Copenhagen Interpretationholds.29Quantum Cosmological ModelsGenerally, quantum cosmologists advocate the Many WorldsInterpretation because it does not require an external observer tocollapse the wave function of the Universe.30 The Many WorldsInterpretation allows for the wave function of the Multiverse torepresent the superposition of Universes that have diverged due toquantum interactions. The Many Worlds Interpretation may beempirically distinguishable from the Copenhagen Interpretation on thiscosmological scale.31 Probability may ultimately determine whichversion is correct.32In the Copenhagen or single history version; theprobability of an event being observed is given by its quantummeasure.33 In Many Worlds models, the number of observationsoccurring in each world history additionally weights the probability of arandom observation occurring. Thus the probabilities for a randomobservation occurring can vary according to the number of observers ineach world. These probabilities are distinct from the probabilitiesPage, General relativity and relativistic astrophysics, pp. 225‐232.Lev.31 Page, General relativity and relativistic astrophysics, pp. 225‐232.32 D Page, ‘Observational consequences of Many‐Worlds quantum theory’, QuantumPhysics, Abstracts, arXiv:quant‐ph/9904004, vol. 2, 1999.33 Page, General relativity and relativistic astrophysics, pp. 225‐232.2930
8Cross‐sections Volume II 2006calculated within the Copenhagen Interpretation. Don Page presents thefollowing model of a Multiverse to illustrate such distinctions:34Quantum Cosmology Model IWorld 1 has observers; probability of this observation is 10‐100World 2 has no observers; probability of this observation is 1 – 10‐100A Copenhagen Interpretation of this model concludes that theprobability of World 1 is so small that observing such a world would beevidence against the initial presumption that the CopenhagenInterpretation is valid. In a Many Worlds Interpretation, all possibilitiesof non‐zero probability occur, thus the existence of World 1 is expected,however improbable.Quantum Cosmology Model IIQuantum cosmology model II compares the probability of observing theuniverse in its expansion or collapse stage with the number of observersexisting in each phase:World A has 1010 observers during collapse, probability of collapseequal to 1 – 10‐30.World B has 1090 observers during expansion; probability of expansionequal to 10‐30.In the Copenhagen Interpretation, the probability of observing anexpanding universe is extremely small. In a Many WorldsInterpretation, the probability of observing an expanding universe isgiven by its quantum prediction multiplied by the number of observers.Thus the total number of observations of World B is expected to be 1060,which is 1050 times greater than the expected number of observations ofWorld A, given the same reasoning. Thus if the Many WorldsInterpretation is correct, a random observation of the universe isexpected to occur within its expansionary phase rather than its collapsephase.34ibid.
Metaphysical Implications of Quantum Theory Melanie Bannister‐Tyrrell9Whilst Page’s model appears to be a useful analytical tool inestablishing the veracity of competing quantum theories, it must also beemphasized that it is, thus far, purely hypothetical. It is not yet possibleto calculate the quantum probabilities of the universe. Further problemsarise: for instance, the model assumes a closed universe such that acollapse will occur, whereas evidence currently suggests that ouruniverse is open and will continue to expand indefinitely.35 Page doesnot claim to offer a comprehensive ‘explanation’ of the universe with hismodel; instead he acknowledges that the model simply outlines onefeasible possibility to experimentally test the Copenhagen Interpretationagainst the Many Worlds Interpretation.Despite promising developments in quantum cosmology and quantumnon‐locality, the nature of the reality of elementary particles remainsambiguous in quantum theory. The Copenhagen Interpretation iscurrently the dominant reading, though support for the Many Worldsmodel is growing.36 Proponents of the Many Worlds Interpretation mustaccept that the model dictates an infinity of alternate selves coexistingbut non‐interacting in the Multiverse. Universes exist in which youwere never born, and every observation you make of a quantuminteraction forces you to split into two worlds, following lineages thatcontinue to diverge. The Many Worlds Interpretation is immenselycounterintuitive, but this by no means est
THE FARNSWORTH HOUSE, DESIGNED BY MIES VAN DER ROHE / 117 Photograph to accompany Lorna Clarke's essay GLASS HOUSE, DESIGNED BY PHILIP JOHNSON / 117 Photograph to accompany Lorna Clarke's essay STILL FROM CHINATOWN, DIRECTED BY ROMAN POLANSKI / 118 Still to accompany Katie Ryan's essay
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Cross-sections: The Bruce Hall Academic Journal is an annual publication co-ordinated by the students of Bruce Hall and the Australian National University. Bruce Hall Building 40, Daley Road The Australian National University Canberra ACT 2601, Australia P: 61 2 6125 6000 F: 61 2 6125 6010 W: h p://brucehall.anu.edu.au
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
