MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945536233 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2019-0054

Relativistic mass due to a dilatant vacuum leads to a quantum reformulation of the relativistic kinetic energy

2019· article· en· W2945536233 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marco Fedi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRelativity and Gravitational Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsVacuum energyKinetic energyQED vacuumClassical mechanicsNegative energyQuantumQuantum electrodynamicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relativistic mass change with speed is considered here as the effect of a viscous, dilatant vacuum, whose apparent viscosity is related to the Lorentz factor. Transient solid-like vacuum due to shear stress is presented as the reason why vacuum prevents the speed of massive objects from being indefinitely increased. Such a vacuum – that in a previous study allowed to exactly calculate the Pioneer anomaly, Mercury’s perihelion precession, and was shown to be compatible with stable planetary orbits – leads here to a quantum formula for the relativistic kinetic energy. A formula which distinguishes between the case of accelerated charges in a vacuum, for which a Stokes–Einstein radius comes into play, and the case of accelerated macroscopic bodies, for which the quantum potential term vanishes. In this way, incidentally, one obtains again correct results for the Pioneer 10, confirming the role of vacuum’s viscous force. This description of a quantum mechanism underlying the relativistic kinetic energy may be also helpful in constructing a theory of quantum relativity and may even tell us more about the interactions of matter with the Higgs field and the dark sector: two issues which can be themselves linked to a dilatant vacuum.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicRelativity and Gravitational TheoryFrench-language works237,207