MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Origins and Unification of the Four Fundamental Forces of Nature

2025· preprint· en· W4406185357 on OpenAlexaff
Shangqing Liu

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsWillow Biosciences (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnificationTheoretical physicsPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The four fundamental forces of nature are extremely important because they dominate the formation and evolution of the universe. However, until now, their physical origins and essential qualities have not been explained with wide acceptance. Based on new and solid understandings, this paper provides new explanations for the origins and essences of these four forces, that is, all four fundamental forces originate from the electric force and can therefore be unified as one force. First, the gravitational force is a synthetic electric force produced by a huge number of electric charges via non-uniform charge distribution. Next, based on a novel inference of nuclear structure, which is strongly supported by observed phenomena, the strong and weak forces are also deduced to be electric forces. These introduced new understandings can explain observed confusing phenomena simply and effectively, such as “dark matter,” “dark energy,” “flat galaxies,” “filamentary nebulae,” and “gamma-ray bursts” in nuclear fission or fusion and from black holes. The author presents these new understandings in an effort to find the natural truth earlier.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.017
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.327
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207