MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399781037 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-37.2.169

The length contraction paradox

2024· article· en· W4399781037 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chandru Iyer

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRelativity and Gravitational Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTime dilationLength contractionReciprocalInertial frame of referenceContraction (grammar)PhysicsLorentz transformationContradictionTwin paradoxTheory of relativityClassical mechanicsTheoretical physicsSpecial relativityEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reciprocal length contraction and time dilation, as enshrined in the Lorentz transformation, are the bulwark of the special relativity theory. Reciprocal time dilation is typically discussed (in the context of its apparent contradiction) and usually explained away as the result of differing synchronization in inertial reference frames and the relativity of simultaneity. Further, it is generally suggested that time is an abstract concept, and its perceptions may differ with context. However, we suggest that regarding length measurements no such abstraction can be envisaged. In this manuscript, we examine the reciprocal length contraction in detail to assess whether it leads to any contradiction.

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 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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics EssaysSame topicRelativity and Gravitational TheoryFrench-language works237,207