From A 4-Rank Totally Antisymmetric Field Strength to Two Dual Strings in Four Time and Four Space Dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Requiring that 4-rank “electromagnetic” gauge field strength, in four time and four space dimensions ((4+4)-dimensions), satisfies the Grassmann-Pl¨ucker relations, it is shown that by choosing appropriate ansatz (for a basic basis) one can derive two dual strings: One string associated with a (1 + 3)-world, and the other with a (3 + 1)-world. An interesting aspect of this mechanism is that the string in the (1 + 3)-world turns out to be dual to the string in the (3 + 1)-world. It may helpful to clarify the main achievement of this work for a possible non-specialist reader. The central idea is to show that the complete description of our universe in (1 + 3)-dimensions (one time and three space dimensions) may require to assume a mirror dual universe in (3 + 1)-dimensions. So, if an object (3-brane) ‘lives’ in higher dimensional-world that include both the (1 + 3)-world and the mirror (3 + 1)-world, such as the (4 + 4)-dimensional-world, one may be able to show that can be broken into two simpler objects (strings or 1-branes). The key point our achievement is that the hidden symmetry relating these two simpler objects is duality.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".