Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classical gravity can be described as a relational dynamical system without ever appealing to space–time or its geometry. This description is the so-called shape dynamics description of gravity. The existence of relational first principles from which the shape dynamics description of gravity can be derived is a motivation to consider shape dynamics (rather than general relativity) as the fundamental description of gravity. Adopting this point of view leads to the question: What is the role of space–time in the shape dynamics description of gravity? This question contains many aspects: Compatibility of shape dynamics with the description of gravity in terms of space–time geometry, the role of local Minkowski space, universality of space–time geometry and the nature of quantum particles, which can no longer be assumed to be irreducible representations of the Poincaré group. In this contribution I derive effective space–time structures by considering how matter fluctuations evolve along with shape dynamics. This evolution reveals an “experienced space–time geometry.” This leads (in an idealized approximation) to local Minkowski space and causal relations. The small-scale structure of the emergent geometric picture depends on the specific probes used to experience space–time, which limits the applicability of effective space–time to describe shape dynamics. I conclude with discussing the nature of quantum fluctuations (particles) in shape dynamics and how local Minkowski space–time emerges from the evolution of quantum particles.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".