MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399781369 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-37.2.129

The paradox of Minkowski space: Imaginary unit <i>i</i> is not a number but an action sign

2024· article· en· W4399781369 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrey Yurievich Nechitaylo

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanics and Biomechanics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinkowski spaceSign (mathematics)The ImaginaryAction (physics)Unit vectorSpace (punctuation)PhysicsMathematicsEuclidean geometryMathematical analysisMathematical physicsGeometryQuantum mechanicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work explains an internal contradiction (error) in the current understanding of non-Euclidean Minkowski space. This error happens because the imaginary unit &lt;mml:math display="inline"&gt; &lt;mml:mi&gt;i&lt;/mml:mi&gt; &lt;/mml:math&gt; in the Minkowski space is considered as a number. In order to solve this contradiction, it is explained in this work that the imaginary unit &lt;mml:math display="inline"&gt; &lt;mml:mi&gt;i&lt;/mml:mi&gt; &lt;/mml:math&gt; must be consider as an action sign over a vector because only direction of the vector could be imaginary, since imaginary length is nonsense. The concept on the imaginarity of vector refers to the directions of vector (as “plus” or “minus”), but not to the length value and therefore, all numbers could be considered as freely rotatable vectors. Being considered from this position, both the imaginary and real directions (not lengths) of a vector would be consistent for different observers, because they could consider different real axes.

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 score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics EssaysSame topicMechanics and Biomechanics StudiesFrench-language works237,207