MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979720969 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-32.3.331

Why the Sagnac effect favors absolute over relative simultaneity

2019· article· en· W2979720969 on OpenAlex
Gianfranco Spavieri, Espen Gaarder Haug

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRelativity and Gravitational Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimultaneityTime dilationPhysicsSagnac effectEinsteinLength contractionTheory of relativityTheoretical physicsRelativistic quantum chemistrySpecial relativityClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsOpticsOptical fiber

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a thought experiment, equivalent to the Sagnac effect, where a light signal performs a round trip over a closed path. If special relativity (SR) adopts Einstein synchronization, the result of the experiment shows that the local light speed cannot be c in every section of the closed path. No inconsistencies are found when adopting absolute synchronization. Since Einstein and absolute synchronizations can be discriminated, the conventionality of the one-way speed of light holds no longer. Thus, as sustained by specialists, it might be a viable formulation of SR that reinstates the conservation of simultaneity, even though it allows for relativistic effects, such as time dilation. Such an approach may lead to the discovery of new effects and a better understanding 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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

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)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.241 · 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