MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324144763 · doi:10.3390/ecu2023-14054

Construction of Discrete Symmetries Using the Pauli Algebra Form of the Dirac Equation

2023· article· en· W4324144763 on OpenAlexaff
Avraham Nofech

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic and Geometric Analysis
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomogeneous spaceDirac equationPauli exclusion principleAlgebra over a fieldDirac (video compression format)Dirac algebraPauli matricesMathematicsPhysicsMathematical physicsPure mathematicsComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two equations whose variables take values in the Pauli algebra of complex quaternions are shown to be equivalent to the standard Dirac equation and its Hermitian conjugate taken together. They are transformed one into the other by an outer automorphism of the Pauli algebra. Given a solution to the Dirac equation, a new solution is obtained by multiplying it on the right by one of the 16 matrices of the Pauli group. This defines a homomorphism from the Pauli group into the group of discrete symmetries, whose kernel is a cyclic group of order four. The group of discrete symmetries is shown to be the Klein four-group consisting of four elements: the identity Id; the charge conjugation symmetry C; the mass inversion symmetry M; and their composition in either order, CM = MC. The mass inversion symmetry inverts the sign of the mass, leaving the electric charge unchanged. The outer “bar-star” automorphism is identified with the parity operation, resulting in proof of CPT = M or, equivalently, CPTM = Identity.

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)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAlgebraic and Geometric AnalysisFrench-language works237,207