Testing Absolute vs Relative Simultaneity with the Spin-orbit Interaction and the Sagnac Effect
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
All the experiments supporting special relativity (SR) formulated with Einstein synchronization support as well SR with absolute synchronization, if the corresponding coordinate transformations foresee time dilation and length contraction. We first test absolute vs relative simultaneity with a non-relativistic model of the spin-orbit interaction by taking into account either the effect of the electron hidden momentum or the relativistic effect of the Thomas precession, based on non-conservation of simultaneity. As second test, we consider a thought experiment equivalent to the Sagnac effect, where a clock measures the time taken by a counter-propagating light signal to perform a round trip on a closed path. While these experiments are coherently described with absolute simultaneity, the result of our tests points out inconsistencies in the case of relative simultaneity, thus favoring the formulation of SR with absolute synchronization, while advocating that further research and tests on simultaneity are needed for the comprehension of relativistic theories.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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