MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110985873 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-33.4.428

Effect of conservation of spatial volume on electromagnetic particle refraction and diffraction interference patterns

2020· article· en· W3110985873 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Keith W. Moored

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicExperimental and Theoretical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsDiffractionRefractionElectromagnetic radiationElectromagnetic fieldSpacetimeInterference (communication)PhotonField (mathematics)Classical mechanicsOpticsNegative refractionMaxima and minimaComputational physicsQuantum mechanicsRefractive index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay presents an alternate theory for the mechanism of electromagnetic refraction and diffraction interference patterns and provides arguments in support of new concepts for these phenomena. These concepts are predicated on the idea that free-space appears to be composed of an energy field with characteristics of an elastic medium that the author termed “spatial energy field” or SEF. It is proposed that the geometric volume of space requires conservation, and this is achieved via stretching or compression of space while exhibiting elastic and wavelike qualities. The SEF, representing spacetime, has specific properties that appear to lead to the emergence of electromagnetic refraction and diffraction. It is proposed that the conservation of spatial volume affects the outcome of particle refraction and diffraction interference patterns. A mechanism for refraction is explained by higher density spacetime (SEF) near atomic nuclei reducing the apparent velocity of transmitted photons. For diffraction, momentum guiding “pilot waves” of spacetime (SEF) is presented as the mechanism for production and redirection of minima and maxima interference patterns of 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 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)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics EssaysSame topicExperimental and Theoretical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207