MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1820699885 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2015-0431

Invariance of the fine structure constant with temperature of the expanding universe

2015· article· en· W1820699885 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cláudio Nassif, A. C. Amaro de Faria

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsDe Sitter universeCosmological constantFlatness problemUniverseFine-structure constantScale factor (cosmology)Particle horizonMetric expansion of spacePlanck lengthTheoretical physicsPlanckAge of the universePlanck energyDark energyCosmologyAstrophysicsQuantum mechanicsElectronSteady State theoryPlanck scaleQuantum gravityQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our goal is to interpret the energy equation from doubly special relativity of Magueijo–Smolin with an invariant Planck energy scale to obtain the speed of light with an explicit dependence on the background temperature of the expanding universe (Nassif and de Faria. Phys. Rev. D, 86, 027703 (2012). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.027703 ). We also investigate how other universal constants, including the fine structure constant, have varied since the early universe and, thus, how they have evolved over the cosmological time related to the temperature of the expanding universe. For instance, we show that both the Planck constant and the electron charge were also too large in the early universe. However, we finally conclude that the fine structure constant has remained invariant with the age and temperature of the universe, which is in agreement with laboratory tests and some observational data.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physics→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→