MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W197521823 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1310.4466

Searching for a highly unlikely frame dependent speed of light using a one-way test

2013· preprint· en· W197521823 on OpenAlexaff
Md. Farid Ahmed, Brendan M. Quine, Spiros Pagiatakis, A D Stauffer

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOne-way speed of lightSpeed of light (cellular automaton)Measure (data warehouse)Special relativitySynchronization (alternating current)Test (biology)Theory of relativityIsotropyPhysicsFrame (networking)Superluminal motionTheoretical physicsComputer scienceSpeed measurementClock synchronizationOpticsTelecommunicationsQuantum mechanicsPrinciple of relativityNumerical relativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At first blush, what appears to be a purely physical question to measure any velocity: how to measure the velocity on a one-way trip? However, due to the debates of the clock-synchronization and the successes of Special Relativity (SR), searching of the possibility of one-way speed of light measurement did not receive wider attention since the declaration of the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum by Maxwell's Electrodynamics in 1864. However, our analysis suggests that the debates of the clock synchronization are insignificant when one uses a one-way experiment to test the isotropy of the speed of light - the fundamental postulate of SR. Searching of the possibility of one-way speed of light to test SR is introduced by reviewing recent one-way tests.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.015
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.141 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207