More on the early interpretation of the Schwarzschild
Bibliographic record
Abstract
G. Lemaître was apparently the first to make an explicit coordinate transformation resulting in the removal of the singularity at r = a = 2m in the Schwarzschild metric, while C. Lanczos was the first to express doubts on the physical reality of that singularity since it could be introduced or removed by a transformation of coordinates. In a recent paper Hans-Jürgen Schmidt [1] emphasized the important contribution made by J.L. Synge in 1950 to the clarification of the physical interpretation of the Schwarzschild black hole at its horizon [2]. The paper of Synge is indeed remarkable, especially because it “contains many interesting results all of them being discussed in details ” [3]. What is also remarkable is that Synge’s paper is greatly inspired by the work of G. Lemaître, who apparently was the first to have made an explicit transformation of coordinates to remove the singularity at r = a = 2m in the Schwarzschild metric [4]. Moreover, Synge mentions H.P. Robertson’s lectures in 1939 at the University of Toronto, which drew his attention to Lemaître’s paper, as well as to similar results obtained
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".