Yarman’s approach predicts anomalous gravitational bending of high-energy gamma-quanta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We predict anomalous gravitational bending of gamma rays using the gravitational framework of Yarman’s approach, abbreviated hereinafter as “YARK” from the initials of the co-authors to designate their teamwork. In contrast to the metric layout of the general theory of relativity (GTR), YARK theory is founded directly on the energy conservation law pertaining to interaction between masses. Despite the fact that predictions made respectively by GTR and YARK regarding cornerstone astrophysical observations appear remarkably identical to each other, the philosophies behind them are irreconcilably different. To test which theory comes closer to the reality, one should propose ways to distinguish their success at the experimental level. Note that bending of light in GTR represents a purely metric effect, which cannot depend on the energy of photons, whereas YARK conceptually allows the deflection of photons across a gravitational environment contingent upon either their wave-like or corpuscular-like behavior. In the case of “wave-like propagation”, which we deem particular to low-energy photons (including the visible range), YARK arrives at the same results as GTR; whereas for high-energy gamma-quanta, which we deem to signify “corpuscular-like propagation”, the deflection in a gravitational field practically vanishes in YARK. Given this opportunity to test YARK theory against GTR, we discuss possible experimental setups relevant to the subject.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".