MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1906773725 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2014-0140

Thomas precession and the Bacry paradox

2014· article· en· W1906773725 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPrecessionLorentz transformationRotation (mathematics)Inertial frame of referenceSpin (aerodynamics)Transformation (genetics)Classical mechanicsMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show that in the derivation of the frequency of Thomas precession, the fact of implementation of rotation-free Lorentz transformations between a laboratory frame, K L , and Lorentz frames K(t) co-moving with a particle with spin at any time moments, t, has principal importance. Choosing for the observation of the particle’s motion any other inertial frame, K, related with K L by the rotation-free transformation, we have to realize that the transformations between K and K(t) at any t are no longer rotation-free. This way we provide a resolution of the known paradox by Bacry (H. Bacry. Nuovo Cimento, 26, 1164 (1962)) and suggest a reinterpretation of the Thomas precession, which is further discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.256 · 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