MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A model for emergence of space and time

2015· article· en· W1680206397 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J. Ambjørn, Y. Watabiki

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Letters B · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaEuropean Research CouncilGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsString field theoryVacuum stateCoupling constantNon-critical string theoryQuantization (signal processing)Theoretical physicsHamiltonian (control theory)Quantum field theoryCosmological constantRelationship between string theory and quantum field theoryString phenomenologyQuantum mechanicsString theoryQuantum gravityQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study string field theory (third quantization) of the two-dimensional model of quantum geometry called generalized CDT (“causal dynamical triangulations”). Like in standard non-critical string theory the so-called string field Hamiltonian of generalized CDT can be associated with W -algebra generators through the string mode expansion. This allows us to define an “absolute” vacuum. “Physical” vacua appear as coherent states created by vertex operators acting on the absolute vacuum. Each coherent state corresponds to specific values of the coupling constants of generalized CDT. The cosmological “time” only exists relatively to a given “physical” vacuum and comes into existence before space, which is created because the “physical” vacuum is unstable. Thus each CDT “universe” is created as a “Big Bang” from the absolute vacuum, its time evolution is governed by the CDT string field Hamiltonian with given coupling constants, and one can imagine interactions between CDT universes with different coupling constants (“fourth quantization”)

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics Letters BSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207