MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415013495 · doi:10.5539/apr.v17n2p66

Estimation of the Coupling Constants for the Strong Interaction in the Framework of the Electromagnetic Bridge Theory

2025· article· en· W4415013495 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Massimo Auci

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoupling constantStrong interactionCoupling (piping)Quantum chromodynamicsScalingRenormalizationGauge theoryFunction (biology)Asymptotic freedomFine-structure constant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A theoretical prediction of the strong coupling constant  based on a non-perturbative framework derived from Bridge Theory (BT) application is presented, in which strong interactions emerge from electromagnetic dipole interactions (DEMS) between fractional charges. Without relying on Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) or renormalization group formalism, we derive a functional expression for  as a function of energy scale , based on the spatial and energetic configuration of quark interactions. The resulting function exhibits asymptotic freedom at high energies and yields values of  in close agreement with experimental data in the 91–4000 GeV range. The predicted behaviour matches the experimental running of  across various particle production channels, including , , and heavy boson processes. The model provides a geometric interpretation of strong coupling as an emergent electromagnetic effect governed by the local structure of the dipole system, avoiding the need for additional gauge fields. These results suggest that the strong coupling constant may derive from universal interaction principles and that strong force dynamics could be reinterpreted within an electromagnetic framework. The method is fully predictive and does not rely on fitted parameters.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.322 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics ResearchSame topicMagnetic Properties and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207