Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite consistent experimental evidence reaffirming the constant and universal maximum velocity of light, there remains some ambiguity with respect to the absolute certainty of this postulate. In particular, both cosmic inflation [A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, Cosmological Inflation and Large-Scale Structure (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2000)] and quantum entanglement [A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982)] have been interpreted to demonstrate velocities in excess of the velocity of light. Although theories have been offered to explain these contradictions, there remains enough uncertainty to warrant further investigation. Here we will provide a new theory, using the principle of relativity, to offer both a framework for understanding this problem and a method for reconciling the ambiguity that arises from it. 2012 Physics Essays Publication. [DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-25.1.62] Resume: Malgre l’evidence empirique affirmant la constance et l’universalite de la velocite maximale de la lumiere, il persiste une certaine ambiguite en ce qui concerne la certitude absolue de ce postulat. En particulier, on a interprete l’inflation cosmique [A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, Cosmological Inflation and Large-Scale Structure (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2000)] et l’intrication quantique [A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982)] comme ayant des vitesses en exces de la velocite de la lumiere. Bien qu’on ait avance des theories cherchant a expliquer ces contradictions, il reste toutefois suffisamment d’incertitude qui fait que la question merite d’etre approfondie. Dans le present article, en nous servant des principes de la relativite, nous mettrons en evidence une nouvelle theorie qui offre un cadre pour mieux comprendre la question ainsi qu’une methode qui permet de reconcilier l’ambiguite qui en resulte.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".