The Revised SI of physical units (2019), Max Planck (1900), and 'Planck scale'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 9th edition of the International System of Units (SI) adopted in 2019 is based on the notion that the defining (formerly 'fundamental') physical constants have accidental values assigned ad hoc. This idea first appeared in a hypothetical system of 'natural units' proposed by Max Planck in 1900. If these constants are assigned unity then the defined physical units accept unusual numerical values, commonly called 'Planck values, which are also accidental. The analysis of Planck's works affirms that 'Planck values' were deemed arbitrary and Planck never considered them as physically significant. Consequently, 'Planck length', 'Planck mass', 'Planck energy' etc, used as scales in many models, are irrelevant to physics. According to modern metrology, the foundation of physics as an experimental science, such models are theoretically inconsistent, while 'Hierarchy Problem' of high-energy theories does not exist.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".