MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1548814017 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.024027

Do spinors give rise to a frame-dragging effect?

2010· article· en· W1548814017 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRelativity and Gravitational Theory
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsSpinorClassical mechanicsSpin (aerodynamics)Quantum mechanicsAngular momentumHamiltonian (control theory)Theoretical physicsQuantum electrodynamicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the effect of the intrinsic spin of a fundamental spinor field on the surrounding spacetime geometry. We show that despite the lack of a rotating stress-energy source (and despite claims to the contrary) the intrinsic spin of a spin-half fermion gives rise to a frame-dragging effect analogous to that of orbital angular momentum, even in Einstein-Hilbert gravity where torsion is constrained to be zero. This resolves a paradox regarding the counter-force needed to restore Newton's third law in the well-known spin-orbit interaction. In addition, the frame-dragging effect gives rise to a long-range gravitationally mediated spin-spin dipole interaction coupling the internal spins of two sources. We argue that despite the weakness of the interaction, the spin-spin interaction will dominate over the ordinary inverse square Newtonian interaction in any process of sufficiently high energy for quantum field theoretical effects to be non-negligible.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it