MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296750791 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-35.3.270

There is no vacuum zero-point energy in our universe for massive particles within the scope of relativistic quantum mechanics

2022· article· en· W4296750791 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huai‐Yu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsPhysicsZero-point energyVacuum energyScope (computer science)Relativistic mechanicsUniverseZero-energy universeZero (linguistics)Relativistic quantum mechanicsMetric expansion of spaceClassical mechanicsTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsDe Sitter universeDark energyQuantumQuantum dissipationTheory of relativitySteady State theoryCosmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It was long believed that there is a zero-point energy in the form of ω / 2 for massive particles, which is obtained from Schrödinger equation for the harmonic oscillator model. In this paper, it is shown, by the Dirac oscillator, that there is no such a zero-point energy. It is argued that when a particle's wave function can spread in the whole space, it can be static. This does neither violate wave-particle duality nor uncertainty relationship. Dirac equation correctly describes physical reality, while Schrödinger equation does not when it is not the nonrelativistic approximation of Dirac equation with a certain model. The conclusion that there is no zero-point energy in the form of ω / 2 is applied to solve the famous cosmological constant problem for massive particles.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics EssaysSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207