MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205471948 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-34.4.583

Time as the result of the observer’s measurement

2021· article· en· W4205471948 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObserver (physics)PhysicsTheory of relativityQuantum entanglementDuration (music)Space timeProper timeSpacetimeMeasure (data warehouse)General relativityTheoretical physicsQuantumQuantum mechanicsClassical mechanicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the beginning of physics, time is the duration of material changes. We measure time with clocks. The notion of time in Newton physics, Einstein’s relativity, and quantum physics are different despite we always measure the same time with the same apparatuses that are clocks. We showed in this article that the act of the measurement done by the observer is generating duration. Time as duration is the result of the interaction between the observer and physical reality via clocks. In the universe, only changes exist. Changes have no duration on their own. Time as duration is born with the measurement done by the observer. Duration is relative and depends on the variable energy density of time-invariant superfluid quantum space that is the carrier of EPR-type entanglement.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.175 · 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