MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389786160 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-36.4.437

The case against gravity

2023· article· en· W4389786160 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
C Cahen

Notice bibliographique

RevuePhysics Essays · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiqueCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGravitonPhysicsTheoretical physicsGravitationEinsteinQuantum gravityHiggs bosonEquivalence principle (geometric)Classical mechanicsQuantumQuantum mechanics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The myth of this “quasi-magical” gravity and its “effect at a distance” endures, and our brains remain “hardwired” to this perception. However, “quantum gravity” is increasingly closer to nullifying the importance of this mysterious force by treating it with the outmost contempt as a “negligible force.” We concur with this interpretation, and more: We claim in this article that not only is gravity negligible but also explain how it can be completely eliminated as one of four fundamental forces of the universe. This article is, in fact, a continuation, a widening, and a confirmation of an article I wrote in 1993, titled “The proportional expansion of each and every celestial body as the cause of gravitation” [Phys. Essays 6, 473 (1993)]. There, I had argued that not only is empty space expanding in the classically understood sense, but that all celestial bodies are also subject to an accelerated expansion. According to Einstein’s principle of equivalence, acceleration generates an opposite, “fictitious” force that is perceived as gravity. I had concluded there that “in terms of quantum mechanics, in this interpretation, the very existence of the predicted ‘graviton’ becomes extremely questionable.” Thirty years have passed since then. And in spite of the development of the Large Hadron Collider and its impressive capabilities, the above claim has been confirmed, and the graviton has been quietly replaced by the Higgs boson in the nomenclature of the Standard Model of elementary particles. In this article, we revisit Galileo and Newton to show that the latter could not have arrived at any other conclusion than an “attractive” force of gravity. We also ask why Albert Einstein did not apply his own principle of equivalence to the Newtonian interpretation of gravity. At the same time, some very “peculiar” interpretations have arisen since my above-mentioned article from 1993. “Dark matter” and “dark energy,” both very speculative conceptualizations, have been forced upon us to explain two phenomena: The anomaly discovered in the speed of rotation of the galaxies, and the accelerated expansion of the universe, despite the potentially shrinking effect of gravity. Of all the positive advances in physics, the most fundamental is the genesis of “quantum gravity,” the tenets of which relegate gravity to the level of a “negligible” force. This is followed by the characterization of the Higgs boson, which has replaced the graviton in the Standard Model. This conceptually translates into the fact that the gravitational mass has possibly been replaced by the inertial mass of celestial bodies. The confirmation and measurements of the accelerated expansion of the universe, while there is still some controversies regarding the exact results of these measurements. Finally, the most important discovery in this regard was recently made in 2019, regarding the exceptionally high pressure inside protons and neutrons, (1035 Pa). This lends credence to the concept of the expansion of these subatomic particles. The multiplicity of these hadrons (3.26 × 1080) and their ubiquitous distribution in the baryonic matter of the entire universe explain its expansion. These hadrons are highly “diluted” in empty space but, on the contrary, are highly clustered and concentrated inside solid matter, where this explains the difference in density between these media and the massive dissimilarity in the magnitudes of their relative accelerated expansion. It also explains why what we call “gravity” is not an active force, but merely the consequence of the density-proportional accelerated radial expansion of each and every celestial body. As such, this baryonic expansion explains the expansion of the universe as a whole, and replaces gravity as a concept as well as its perceived effects. By dint of its ubiquitous nature, this notion of baryonic expansion provides a bridge between the microscopic and macroscopic universe. Quantum physics reconnects with general relativity in this formalism and clarifies the “what and how.”

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,013
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,043

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,010
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,052
Communication savante0,0100,017
Science ouverte0,0020,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0110,017
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0130,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,269
Écart entre enseignants0,256 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePhysics Essays→Même sujetCosmology and Gravitation Theories→Travaux en français237 207→