MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405760290 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-37.4.332

A kinetic interpretation of <i>E</i> = <i>mc</i><sup>2</sup>

2024· article· en· W4405760290 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
José M. Frade

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinetic energyPhysicsUniverseSpeed of light (cellular automaton)Interpretation (philosophy)Metric expansion of spaceTheoretical physicsTheory of relativityKinetic theoryDark energyClassical mechanicsCosmologyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Special Theory of Relativity (STR) has equalized resting mass with energy, the latter being proportional to the squared speed of light ( c ) ( E = mc 2 ). This value exactly doubles the kinetic energy of a mass moving at c speed ( E = 1/2 mc 2 ). Therefore, E = mc 2 could be kinetically explained within the framework of a previously described, four-dimensional (4D) universe ( U 4D ) where the 3D space in which we live ( U 3D ) moves at c speed along its fourth dimension. We have shown that the counterintuitive effects on kinematics and dynamics of the STR can be explained as a misperception of the 4D reality when projected to U 3D . Based on this universe model, E = mc 2 could be interpreted as the sum of the kinetic energy associated with the mass, due to its displacement together with U 3D along the fourth dimension, plus the variation of the kinetic energy of U 3D itself when the mass is either annihilated or created, due to the principle of momentum conservation. This kinetic interpretation of E = mc 2 provides a new framework for our understanding of the Universe through a new-Newtonian perspective. Importantly, our results provide a way to experimentally test our universe model and, additionally, to estimate the mass present in U 3D .

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics EssaysSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207