Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gravity has been shown in theories of relativity to be the curving of space around massive bodies. Thus, objects in orbits are following a straight line along a curved space. Why massive bodies curve space is not explained. We continue to ask “What is Gravity?” Quantum mechanics unites theories of electro-magnetism (QED), the weak nuclear force (EWT), and the strong nuclear force (QCD) in the standard model of particle physics, or with a grand unified theory (GUT) sought for these three fundamental forces. As yet there is no empirically verified quantum theory of gravity unified with these three fundamental forces. Considering gravity to be the curving of space, it is evident that gravity supervenes from the properties of space itself. In this short paper, we will attempt to define one of these spatial properties. We will not attempt to define the properties of time, though time appears to be a part of a complete model of gravity. At least in this regard, and likely in many others, our model will be incomplete. We will build a case for the massive collapse of probability density waves (PDWs) in surrounding space, due to the interactions of particles in massive bodies. The collapse of these probabilities, of each particle’s possible superposition somewhere in the surrounding space, causes the apparent “curving” of space. We will conclude that space is not the absence of things. Space is a thing in itself. Included in the properties of space is the potential to contain/transmit PDWs. This potential is suggested by both the theories of relativity and the experimental observations of quantum mechanics. In the presence of massive bodies, particle superposition and the probability of existence in the surrounding space is, to varying degrees, lost and space appears to curve as a consequence.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.006 |
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".