Bibliographic record
Abstract
For nearly a century, whether magnetic monopoles exist has been a topic of ongoing debate within the physics community, touching on the core of electromagnetic theory. In classical electromagnetism, conduction currents and displacement currents are considered the sources of magnetic fields. Upon in-depth exploration, it was discovered that there exists a special “equivalent internal circulation” in ferromagnetic materials, which, together with conduction current and displacement current, constitute the source of all magnetism. This discovery challenges conventional wisdom, adding a new dimension to our understanding of the nature of magnetism. Further research proposes that the essence of magnetism lies in the electric field excited by the motion of charges relative to an observer—a dynamic electric field characterized by external rotation, which corresponds to the fundamental properties of the static electric field. This is termed the dynamic external rotating electric field (DEREF). The concept and theory of the DEREF expand the fourth equation of Maxwell’s differential form, establishing asymmetric relationship between electricity and magnetism. This provides a new perspective for exploring the existence of magnetic monopoles. The introduction of this theory suggests that the prediction of magnetic monopoles should be reconsidered in the context of robust electromagnetic theory, potentially having far-reaching implications for cosmology, quantum physics, and more.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".