Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to solve the Neutron decay mass gap problem, Pauli proposed a precise solution. The brilliant idea of a 3rd particle came to Pauli (fully shared by Fermi) to compensate the energy-mass gap that emerged from the disintegration of the neutron, or negative b decay (bd-): N® P + e-. The basic requirements originally requested by Pauli and Fermi for the new particle, later called neutrino, are essentially three: it is electrically neutral and it must have the same mass and spin of an electron. Hence, if the mass of the neutrino (n) corresponded to that assumed by Pauli and Fermi, the βd- mass gap problem would be brilliantly solved. However, the current upper limits of the mass of the n are < 2eV. Here we show that a clear incongruity comes out: the mass attributed to the n will never be able to solve the energy gap problem of the βd- : it takes ≃ 250,000 n to compensate the energy-mass gap. Unless we consider, instead of n, another particle, probably still unknown, as the 3rd particle of βd-. To find a solution, we hypothesized the existence of an electron with no electric charge: a neutral electron (e°).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".