Mass-area equivalence in classical physics and aspects of mutual shielding of objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The physical and mathematical aspects of the mutual spatial shielding of interacting elements in the framework of classical physics are considered. The mass-area equivalence is introduced for the formal unification of the Newtonian theory of gravity with the kinetic theories of Descartes-Fatio-Le Sage. A mathematical equation describing the dependence of the mutual shielding of objects on their size, number and relative location is proposed. Spatial mutual shielding is considered for mass-forming elements—nucleons in the atomic nucleus and atomic nuclei in ordinary substances. The close shielding is distinguished when the distance between the shielding elements is commensurate with their size, which is typical for nucleons in atomic nuclei and the far shielding, when the distance between the elements is much larger than their size, which is typical for atomic nuclei in ordinary substances. An analytical expression for the binding energy of nucleons in atomic nucleus is obtained. It allows us to estimate the distance between nucleons in the nucleus and consider stability of nuclei as a function of the distance between nucleons, which increases due to an increase in the Coulomb repulsion force with an increase in the number of protons. One of the three ideas of Dirac, presented by him for the further development of the physical theory, is implemented: taking into account the sizes of elementary particles—nucleons.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".