MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7084603780 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-38.3.281

The proton inner energy, inner entropy, and inner pressure are the source of all baryonic matter expansion. It elucidates what we call gravitation

2025· article· en· W7084603780 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaryonGravitationAntimatterDark matterDark energyEntropy (arrow of time)Quantum entanglement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In three preceding articles [Cahen, Phys. Essays 6, 473 (1993); 37, 207 (2024); 38, 8 (2025)] we posited that what we call gravitation is in fact the end result of the accelerated expansion of all baryonic matter and not the result of any phenomenon of attraction as postulated by Isaac Newton. In this present article, we lean on the latest advances in particle physics and the determination of the intense energy inside the proton. Proton inner pressure and the introduction of the notion of entanglement entropy at the femtometer scale are at play here. Both buttress our interpretation of baryonic expansion as the cause of what we call gravitation. Incidentally, one explains why the universal and absolute imbalance between matter and antimatter finds its origin inside the proton. We also address the constant and cohesive increase in the “space‐time manifold” around the planet, following the “Fibonacci-like” expansion of our planet. Thus, this cohesive expansion contradicts the “warping” of the Einsteinian space‐time manifold as the cause of gravitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.018
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207