Conservative relativity principle and energy-momentum conservation in a superimposed gravitational and electric field
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We address to the conservative relativity principle (CRP), which we recently advanced (A.L.Kholmetskii, et al.Eur.Phys.J. Plus 129 (2014) 102).This principle asserts the impossibility to distinguish the state of rest and the state of motion of a system moving at constant velocity, if no work is done to the system in question during its motion; such a constraint is thus closely linked to the energy-momentum conservation law.Therefore, the conservative relativity principle, along with the Einstein special relativity principle (which obviously represents the particular manifestation of CRP in the case of empty space), and the general relativity principle can be considered as the cornerstones of modern physics.At the same time, some principal implications of CRP -e.g. the dependence of the proper time of a charged particle on the electric potential at its location, happens to be firmly at odds with the established structure of modern physics and, in fact, is not accepted by the wide scientific community up to date.In the present paper we consider the motion of a massive charged particle in a superimposed gravitational and electric field and explicitly demonstrate that the adoption of CRP is strongly required to prevent the violation of the total energy-momentum conservation law for an isolated system "particles and fields".Therefore, all of the consequences of CRP must be incorporated with the structure of physics, and we show that they are in a full agreement with the experimental data collected to the moment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".