MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980281680 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-32.3.298

Relativistic celestial mechanics at sub-microarcsecond accuracy level

2019· article· en· W2980281680 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abhijit Biswas, Krishnan R. S. Mani

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEinsteinPhysicsGeneral relativityTheory of relativityGeneral covarianceTheoretical physicsCovarianceGravitationAstronomyClassical mechanicsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Einstein stated two dictums, so that more experimental facts can replace the previously adopted hypotheses and General Relativity (GR) can evolve to “grand aim” or perfection. In the absence of appropriate experimental facts during pre-CEREPAC ( C entury-long E xperience of R elativity-related E xperiments on P hysics, A stronomy and C elestial-mechanics) era, Einstein found no “escape” from the consequence of non-Euclidean geometry, while keeping all frames permissible based on contemporary knowledge. Bergmann also stated in 1968 that the “principle of general covariance” has brought about serious complication in GR. During CEREPAC, relativists and mathematical-astronomers invariably identified the appropriate “nature’s preferred-frame,” which was later found essential for operation of conservation laws. Based on CEREPAC, replacing the experimentally unverifiable hypotheses with experimentally proven principles, and improving upon the GR-astronomers model (developed by JPL, USA, as an evolved-version of GR-conventional model) in two successive stages, GR was remodeled to what became evident as Evolved GR (EGR), after it enabled the elimination of all earlier-adopted ad-hoc methods or approaches, and of the problems, paradoxes and anomalies, associated with the applications of GR, during CEREPAC, and after it unraveled the “General-relativistic nature of speed-of-light (c)” which links the variable c r with F r, the local Gravitational Red-Shift Factor (as stated by Einstein between 1911‐1921). As a consequence of the space-age developments in numerical simulation and in the availability of precision observational data, it got proven that nature itself operates the conservation laws of energy, and of linear and angular momentums (both magnitudes and directions), with respect to the appropriate “nature’s preferred frame”; this provided sufficient reason for giving up the “relativity of all frames,” bringing back Euclidean geometry in EGR. Euclidean space in EGR enabled development of a Prototype of future Ephemerides, leading to five orders-of-magnitude improvement in accuracy of computation of precession of celestial orbits, using three independent methods; this methodology of Prototype Ephemeris and “three-methods-match” can also be applied while remaining exclusively within the precincts of GR, by using one alternative mode of running the EGR program for planetary and Lunar orbits, by opting for GRTOPT=Y; this mode utilizes exclusively the GR equations instead of EGR equations; in fact, this mode is the GR-astronomers ( modified ) model that was really an intermediate stage of evolution (as mentioned above) between the GR-astronomers model and the EGR model. This model incorporates: (1) All good (and, experimentally proven ) features from the three generations of GR models (Einstein’s original, Bergmann’s and Misner-Thorne-Wheeler or MTW), and (2) The “Nature-adopted” real orbital model (as proven from comparison of the computed precession values at Micro-arcsecond { μas } level using the “three-methods-match”) for its Methodology for Conservation of Linear and Orbital Angular Momentums, in a polar coordinate system (r, , Φ). This model computes: (1) Precession of celestial orbits at nearly the same accuracy as that done using the EGR model, and (2) About three digit more accurate ( than reported by Folkner in 2014, from fitting lunar laser ranging data with an updated lunar gravity field from the GRAIL mission, etc.) orbits of inner planets and the Moon.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.006

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.203 · 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.

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 venuePhysics EssaysSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207