MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046364983 · doi:10.5539/apr.v12n4p107

Complex Limiting Velocity Expressions as Likely Characteristics of Dark Matter Particles

2020· article· en· W3046364983 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Josip Šoln

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsDimensionless quantityFormalism (music)LimitingDark matterMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsParticle physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many astrophysical and cosmological observations suggest that the matter in the universe is mostly of the dark matter type whose behavior goes beyond the Standard Model description. Hence it is justifiable to take a drastically different approach to the dark matter particles which is here done through the bicubic equation of limiting particle velocity formalism. The bicubic equation discriminant $D$ in this undertaking satisfy $D\succeq 0 $ determined by the congruent parameter $z$ satisfying $z^{2}\succeq 1$, where formally $z(m)=3\sqrt{3}mv^{2}/2E$, \ with $m$, $v$, and $E$ being respectively, particle mass, velocity and energy. Also nonlinearly related to the the particle congruent parameter $z$ is the particle congruent angle $% \alpha $ . These two dimensionless\ parameters $z$ \ and $\alpha $ simplify expressions in the bicubic equation limiting particle velocity formalism when evaluating the three particle limiting velocities, $c_{1},$ $c_{2}$\ and $c_{3},$ (primary, obscure and normal) in terms of the ordinary particle velocity, $v$. Corresponding to these limiting velocities \ one then deduces, with equal values, dark matter particle energies $E\left(c_{1}\right) $, $E\left( c_{2}\right) $ and $E\left( c_{3}\right) $. The exemplary values of the congruent parameters are in these regions, $1\preceq z\prec 3\sqrt{3}$ $/2$ and $\pi /2\succeq \alpha \succeq \pi /3$ . Already within these ranges of congruent parameters, the bicubic formalism yields for squares of particle limiting velocities that $c_{1}^{2}$ and $c_{2}^{2}$ are complex conjugate to each other, $c_{1}^{2\ast }=c_{2}^{2}$ ,and that $% c_{3\text{ }}^{2}$is real. The imaginary portions of $c_{1}^{2}$ and $% c_{2}^{2}$ do not change the realities of numerically equal to each other dark matter energies $E\left( c_{i}\right) ,i=1,2,3.$ In fact, real $E\left(c_{1,2}\right) $ energies can be equally evaluated with $c_{1,2}^{2}$ or $% \func{Re}$ $c_{1,2}^{2}$ or even with $\func{Im}c_{1,2}^{2}$ so that in new notation, $E\left( _{1,2}^{2}\right) =E\left( \func{Re}c_{1,2}^{2}\right) =E\left( \func{Im}c_{1,2}^{2}\right) $ $=E\left( c_{3}^{2}\right) $ all with the same real values. However, in these notations, the real particle momenta are $\overrightarrow{p}\left( (\func{Re}c_{1,2}^{2}\right) $ and $\\overrightarrow{p}\left( (c_{3}^{2}\right) $, defined with respective energies and, while in similar forms , numerically are different from each other.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics ResearchSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207