Comparison of relativity theories with observer-independent scales of both velocity and length/mass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are now in the literature two proposals of relativity theories with observer-independent scales of both velocity and length/mass: one, which we here call "DSR1", proposed by Amelino-Camelia in gr-qc/0012051,hep-th/0012238 and one, which we here call "DSR2", proposed by Magueijo and Smolin in hep-th/0112090. We argue that a key aspect of such theories are the kinematical conditions for particle production in collision processes. We derive these kinematical conditions for DSR2, which was originally formulated only in the one-particle sector. This result is then used to characterize the differences between the two proposals; in particular, we find that, while experiments such as AMS and GLAST can test some of the predictions of DSR1, the effects predicted by DSR2 are much weaker and none of them should be testable in the foreseeable future. We also show that if one interprets, as done in hep-th/0112090, the DSR2-boost parameter $v$ as the relative velocity between the observers connected by the boost one is then forced to give up the "Hamiltonian" relation $v_{particle} =dE/dp$ between the speed of a particle and its momentum. We argue that, adopting an accordingly modified interpretation of the DSR2-boost parameter $v$, one can maintain the relation $v_{particle} =dE/dp$ in DSR2.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".