Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the relationship between space–time–matter (STM) and brane theories. These two theories look very different at first sight, and have different motivation for the introduction of a large extra dimension. However, we show that they are equivalent to each other. First we demonstrate that STM predicts local and nonlocal high-energy corrections to general relativity in 4D, which are identical to those predicted by brane-world models. Secondly, we point out that in brane models the usual matter in 4D is a consequence of the dependence of five-dimensional metrics on the extra coordinate. If the 5D bulk metric is independent of the extra dimension, then the brane is void of matter. Thus, in brane theory matter and geometry are unified, which is exactly the paradigm proposed in STM. Consequently, these two 5D theories share the same concepts and predict the same physics. This is important not only from a theoretical point of view, but also in practice. We propose to use a combination of both methods to alleviate the difficult task of finding solutions on the brane. We show an explicit example that illustrate the feasibility of our proposal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".