The Prevalence and Significance of ~10<sup>-20</sup> J and ~10<sup>-12 </sup>W·m<sup>-2</sup> as Convergent/Divergent Nodal Units in the Universe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dimensional analysis that produces the quantitative equivalence between two aggregate terms that have universal prevalence may reveal hidden variables. The value of 10-20 J per s can be derived from the total force of the universe when divided by the total numbers of Planck’s voxels and distributed over the distance of the hydrogen wavelength. The radiant flux density of 10-12 W·m-2 for photons is ubiquitous throughout cellular systems, including those associated with cognition, and background environment measurements. The most parsimonious relation is that the radiant flux density of photons (a divergent phenomenon) is equal to the fundamental energy from the entire force of the universe at the level of Planck’s volume and the energy converging within the electrical (wave impedance) and magnetic (permeability) properties of space with every rotation of an electron. This quantitative relationship suggests there is equilibrium between the divergence of radiative phenomena and the convergence within the electrical and magnetic properties of space with each orbital rotation of an electron. The exactness of this equivalence may reveal the source and mechanisms by which the energies associated with chemical bonds, resting plasma membrane potentials and “entanglement” for rest mass photons could result in radiant flux densities of photonic fields
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".