On the distinction between corpuscular and wave processes and the arbitrariness in the basis of special relativity theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is devoted to the criticism of the wave-particle dualism and the provisions of the special theory of relativity (SRT). The fallacy of accepting the extended principle of relativity and identifying particles and waves is shown. The substantiation is given that the own fields of physical objects, which are material substances and spatially connect physical objects with each other, are the medium of propagation of light waves. The causal and visual picture of the propagation of light waves is considered, and the features of the mechanism of their propagation in comparison with other types of waves are described. On the basis of an alternative method for obtaining the relativistic law of velocities addition, the inconsistency of the principle of invariance of the interval adopted in the framework of SRT is shown. The inconsistency of the SRT positions and conclusions regarding the so-called relativistic effects—time dilation, mass increase, length decrease, as well as the energy of relativistic particles is shown. The presence of the clock paradox is shown by a simple example. The conclusion is made about the incorrectness of using mathematical transformations of Lorentz and the four-dimensional continuum in the physical representation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".