MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7084603769 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-38.3.208

New elementary particle hypothesis: Yin‐Yang particles

2025· article· en· W7084603769 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElementary particleStandard Model (mathematical formulation)Fundamental interactionRange (aeronautics)FermionUniverseSubatomic particle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For centuries, we have attempted to identify the most fundamental particles that make up the universe, culminating in the Standard Model, which contains more than 60 elementary particles, including fermions and bosons. However, even though the Standard Model contains many particles, it fails to reveal the inherent connections among them, raising doubts regarding whether these particles are truly the most basic building blocks of the universe. The particles in the Standard Model are similar to the chemical elements in the periodic table. Without the discovery of more fundamental particles, such as protons, neutrons, and electrons, the underlying reason for the periodicity of elements cannot be explained. This article presents a new theory of elementary particles, namely, Yin‐Yang particles, which are more fundamental than those in the Standard Model and can explain phenomena such as gravity and electromagnetic transduction. Drawing inspiration from Taoist philosophy, which holds that the universe comprises two elements, i.e., Yin (representing darkness) and Yang (representing brightness), these names are adopted in the proposed theory, albeit with distinct interpretations. The proposed particles and their associated models aim to explain a range of physical phenomena, including light, electrons, quarks, black holes, electromagnetic waves, and electromagnetic conversions. Although purely hypothetical, this theory provides a compelling framework.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 venuePhysics EssaysSame topicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial modelsFrench-language works237,207