MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039946566 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-33.1.38

The photon element units and their relativistic properties

2020· article· en· W3039946566 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brian B. K. Min

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadioactive Decay and Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPlanck lengthPlanck energyPlanck massPlanck constantPlanck timeLorentz transformationPlanckFine-structure constantPhotonGravitational constantInvariant massClassical mechanicsGravitationQuantum mechanicsQuantum electrodynamicsQuantum gravityElectronPlanck scaleQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A set of natural units is determined from the “photon element” model of light, the outcome of an extended Compton analysis. In terms of these units, the speed of light and the electrical and Boltzmann constants are, respectively, on the order of unity, but the Planck constant is ∼1027 or greater and gravitational constant ∼10−59 or greater. This makes the photon element units less convenient than the Planck units. With the mass unit that is only ∼10−43 of the Planck mass, however, the photon element units can correspond better to physical realities than the Planck units. For the spacetime, a photon element forms a set of unit base vectors, a natural basis that is Lorentz covariant. There an analysis shows that (1) of the above five universal constants all are Lorentz invariants except the gravitational constant, and (2) of the five natural units (time, length, mass, electrical charge, and temperature,) only the electrical charge is a Lorentz invariant.

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)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 venuePhysics EssaysSame topicRadioactive Decay and Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207