MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361006629 · doi:10.5539/apr.v15n1p76

A Re-understanding of the Zero Result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment

2023· article· en· W4361006629 on OpenAlex
Mei Xiaochun, Canlun Yuan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRelativity and Gravitational Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOne-way speed of lightPrinciple of relativityFrame of referencePhysicsTest theories of special relativityLorentz transformationTheory of relativityTests of special relativityEinsteinReference frameTime dilationClassical mechanicsSpecial relativityGalilean transformationTheoretical physicsFour-forceFrame (networking)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As well-known that in order to explain the zero result of the Michelson-Morley experiments (M-M experiments), Lorentz proposed the Lorentz formula of coordinate transformation and led to the birth of Einstein's special relativity. The authors carefully re-examine the M-M experiment and find a serious problem. The premise of the M-M experimental calculations was that the light source was fixed on the absolutely stationary reference frame of the universe (or the ether stationary reference frame). However, in the actual experiments, the light source was fixed on the earth motion reference frame, moving and rotating with the interferometers, which lead to the invalid calculation result of the M-M experiment. In this paper, the correct calculation method is used to prove that the zero result of the M-M experiment can be well explained by using the Galilean relativity principle and the Galilean velocity addition rule. Therefore, the most important experimental foundation of special relativity does not exist. The Lorentz coordinate transformation formulas become unnecessary, and the principles of special relativity and the invariant speed of light are unnecessary too. The experimental tests of special relativity are also discussed briefly. It points out that these experiments are either wrong or have other explanations, and the explanations of special relativity are not unique ones. Physics should give up the Lorentz transformation formula and the Einstein's special relativity completely, introduce the cosmic absolute stationary reference frame, and establish the kinetic theory based on the mass-velocity formula which should be considered as an empirical formula, to solve the fundamental problems in astrophysics and cosmology thoroughly.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.388
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