Angular momentum without rotation: Turbocharging relationalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rotation is a challenging riddle for the relationalist. In early versions of the absolute-relational debate for example, Newton's rotating bucket poured cold water on the relationalist position. While the parameters of the debate have changed, a more recent analysis in 1999 by Belot proclaimed rotation to be "the downfall of relationalism." In this paper, we provide a relational response to the riddle of rotation. We present a theory that, contrary to orthodoxy, can account for all rotational effects without introducing, as the absolutist does, a fixed standard of rotation. Instead, our theory posits a universal SO(3) charge that plays the role of global angular momentum and couples to inter-particle relations via terms commonly seen in standard gauge theories such as electromagnetism and the Standard Model of particle physics. Our theory makes use of an enriched form of relationalism: it adds an SO(3) structure to the traditional relational description. Our construction is made possible by the modern tools of gauge theory, which reveal a simple relational law describing rotational effects. In this way, we can save all the phenomena of Newtonian mechanics using conserved charges and relationalism. In a second paper, we will further explore the ontological and explanatory implications of the theory developed here.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".