Experimental investigation of the influence of spatially distributed charges on the inertial mass of moving electrons as predicted by Weber’s electrodynamics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was shown (J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 62, 1418 (1993)) that Weber’s force law predicts an influence upon the apparent inertial mass of electrically charged particles in relative motion. The quantity of this influence, called Weber’s mass, depends on the relative motion (both speed and acceleration) and the relative spatial distribution of the particles. A special case was analytically solved, in which the motion of a single point charge was considered, surrounded by a static and fixed spherical surface with a homogeneous charge distribution. The first experimental test of the prediction showed positive results (Annal. Fond. Louis de Broglie, 24, 161 (1999)). Two reproductions were carried out, in which null results were reported together with an explanation for the previous positive result. It was suggested that a possible reason for the null result in the experimental setup could be that the charges could freely move on the surface. We set out to reproduce all previous experiments to get detailed insight into the problem, after which we designed a setup that would exclude the possibility of the moving charges on the surface. In all situations we could confirm the null results with a statistical precision of up to 0.009%
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it