Gravity, Mass and the Cosmological Constant: All Can Have the Same Origin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The general belief about gravity is that any suitable theory should include, or will be, a merger of classical quantum theory and relativity. In a recent publication (Veringa, H. J., 2018) a new scheme of analysis for the mutual interaction between particles that have some exchange with respect to time and space has already been presented. The remarkable thing is that, apparently for more than one reason, particles will be interacting in groups of two and only two and can give rise to gravitational interaction. This pair formation was described quantum-mechanically.This analysis starts from the from the classical Schrödinger equation to describe the behaviour of a pair of particles whose solution is used as the invariant term of the relativistic Einstein Energy equation, but this latter formulated in a quantum-mechanical setting known as the “Klein-Gordon” (KG) equation. By solving this equation the properties of the gravitational interaction, as they occur in Newton’s gravity law, are found. Next to this it is also shown that the attribution of mass is a consequence of all other masses constituting our universe and whose calculated value is within the right order of magnitude of what is experimentally observed.More or less as a surprise it became clear that the solution of the KG-equation, which already has lead to the law of gravity and particle masses, can be easily interpreted in such a way that the Cosmological Constant, as it has initially been introduced by Einstein in his famous Field Equation, emerges. This Constant appears to have basically the same properties as Einstein’s Cosmological Constant. It became clear that the existence of such a constant is necessary to have a non-zero value of the gravitational interaction.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".