MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416233214 · doi:10.5539/apr.v17n2p236

From A 4-Rank Totally Antisymmetric Field Strength to Two Dual Strings in Four Time and Four Space Dimensions

2025· article· W4416233214 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. A. Nieto

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArizona State University
KeywordsAntisymmetric relationString (physics)Dual (grammatical number)AnsatzSpace (punctuation)Symmetry (geometry)Field (mathematics)Duality (order theory)Point (geometry)Universe

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.298 · 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.

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 topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207