MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009644421 · doi:10.32370/ia_2020_01_3

Is Gravity the Only Way to Bend Space-Time?

2020· article· en· W3009644421 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark Zilberman

Bibliographic record

VenueIntellectual Archive · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRelativity and Gravitational Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral relativityCurvatureGravitationPhysicsSpacetimeTheory of relativityEinsteinTheoretical physicsSpace (punctuation)Curved spaceGravitational fieldClassical mechanicsGeometryMathematicsQuantum mechanicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to raise the question, "Is gravity the only way to bend the space-time, or can there be other ways to bend space-time?"The answer to this question can be either, A) a description of the mechanism of non-gravitational curvature of space-time, or B) proof that gravity is the only method to bend space-time and there is no other way.Since modern science can prove neither A nor B, the question raised in this article remains open.This article also discusses and rejects the objection that non-gravitational curvature of space-time would be observed as a kind of "additional" gravity, what is not taking place.The scale and strength of non-gravitational curvature is important.Also, the non-gravitational curvature of space-time does not necessarily have the U-shaped form, which we observe as a gravity.The explanation of gravity by the curvature of space-time generated by the presence of massenergy was put forward by Einstein in his works Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation [1] and Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie [2], published in 1915 and 1916 respectively.The Theory of General Relativity has been brilliantly confirmed in many fields of physics and is used in astronomy, engineering, astronautics, atomic physics, etc. Thus, General Relativity and subsequent experiments:A. created a precedent that space-time can be bent; B. proposed the presence of mass-energy as the mechanism of this curvature; C. confirmed this model in many experiments in various fields of science and technology.Thus, a precedent has been created.It is possible to bend space-time and there is at least one mechanism that can do this.However (as far as the author knows) no one has ever proved that gravity is the only way to bend space-time.Therefore, may there be some other mechanism of space-time curvature?This question is unusual, but in the absence of evidence that gravity is the only way to bend space-time, it is a legitimate one.The author's goal, of course, is not to propose another way to bend space time.Perhaps it simply does not exist.This article is merely a statement of the problem, which in all probability has only two solutions: A. a description of the mechanism of non-gravitational curvature of space-time, or B. proof that gravity is the only method to bend space-time and there is no other way.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntellectual ArchiveSame topicRelativity and Gravitational TheoryFrench-language works237,207