MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196975268 · doi:10.33425/2690-8077.1115

A Fundamental Problem in Physics - (Mass vs Electric Charge)

2024· article· en· W3196975268 on OpenAlexaff
Hoa Van Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueJapan Journal of Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicExperimental and Theoretical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsClassical physicsElectric chargeCharge (physics)Theoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In modern physics there exist opposite concepts regarding the constancy and the variability of two major properties of the electron: its mass and its electric charge. Section 1: Mainstream physicists consider the mass of the electron as varying with its velocity while its electric charge as a fundamental constant of physics. Section 2: On the other hand, many other physicists maintain the opposite concept: the mass of the electron is invariant in all physical conditions while its electric charge is variable. Section 3: In the case when the mass is invariant, a mathematical expression for the variability of the electric charge of the electron in external fields will be deduced. Section 4: A thought experiment to demonstrate the variability of the electric charge of the electron in a changing magnetic field. Section 5: Discussions i) Why is the electric charge changed in external field? ii) Renormalizing the mass is problematic iii) Renormalizing the electric charge is innovative iv) The mystery of the mass of the muon v) The controversial concept of time dilation

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.025
Scholarly communication0.0050.020
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJapan Journal of ResearchSame topicExperimental and Theoretical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207