The Oscillation Project with Emulsion-Tracking Apparatus (OPERA) experiment: An argument for superluminal velocities?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Oscillation Project with Emulsion-Tracking Apparatus (OPERA) experiment is regarded by some as an empirical confirmation of the special theory of relativity (STR). It is shown that this opinion is mistaken because STR cannot exclude superluminal velocities. Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transformation was based on a contradiction, which can be reduced mathematically to þ¼� . His premise that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, independent of the motion of its source, is self-contradicting. Hence, by the laws of mathematics, every inference drawn from it is arbitrary, which includes that the speed of light cannot be exceeded. This inference has also been empirically refuted through the results of certain experiments on quantum mechanics, which can only be explained by either admitting superluminal velocities or by admitting miracles (action at a distance). The problems of light cannot be solved at the level of mathematics, but only at the level of physics through a new theory explaining the properties of light by physical parameters. 2012 Physics Essays Publication. (DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-25.3.397) Resum ´ e: Les r ´ esultats trouv ´ es par l'exp ´
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".