MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1819304596 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.025037

Anthropic origin of the neutrino mass from cooling failure

2015· article· en· W1819304596 on OpenAlexafffund
Raphael Bousso, Dan Mainemer Katz, Claire Zukowski

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersGovernment of CanadaFoundational Questions InstituteU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsAnthropic principleNeutrinoParticle physicsBoundary (topology)HaloUniverseGalaxyAstrophysicsTheoretical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sum of active neutrino masses is well constrained, $58\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{meV}\ensuremath{\le}{m}_{\ensuremath{\nu}}\ensuremath{\lesssim}0.23\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{eV}$, but the origin of this scale is not well understood. Here we investigate the possibility that it arises by environmental selection in a large landscape of vacua. Earlier work noted the detrimental effects of neutrinos on large-scale structure. However, using Boltzmann codes to compute the smoothed density contrast on Mpc scales, we find that dark matter halos form abundantly for ${m}_{\ensuremath{\nu}}\ensuremath{\gtrsim}10\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{eV}$. This finding rules out an anthropic origin of ${m}_{\ensuremath{\nu}}$, unless a different catastrophic boundary can be identified. Here we argue that galaxy formation becomes inefficient for ${m}_{\ensuremath{\nu}}\ensuremath{\gtrsim}10\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{eV}$. We show that in this regime, structure forms late and is dominated by cluster scales, as in a top-down scenario. This is catastrophic: baryonic gas will cool too slowly to form stars in an abundance comparable to our Universe. With this novel cooling boundary, we find that the anthropic prediction for ${m}_{\ensuremath{\nu}}$ agrees at better than $2\ensuremath{\sigma}$ with current observational bounds. A degenerate hierarchy is mildly preferred.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.325
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→