MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1905179570 · doi:10.1142/s0218271815440010

Bose–Einstein condensation as an alternative to inflation

2015· article· en· W1905179570 on OpenAlexaff
Saurya Das

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics D · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGravitonTheoretical physicsDark energyUniverseInflationary epochInflation (cosmology)CosmologyScale invarianceDark matterPrimordial fluctuationsQuantum fluctuationCosmic microwave backgroundMetric expansion of spaceQuantumQuantum mechanicsGravitationAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It was recently shown that gravitons with a very small mass should have formed a Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) in the very early universe, whose density and quantum potential can account for the dark matter (DM) and dark energy (DE) in the universe respectively. Here, we show that the condensation can also naturally explain the observed large scale homogeneity and isotropy of the universe. Furthermore, gravitons continue to fall into their ground state within the condensate at every epoch, accounting for the observed flatness of space at cosmological distance scales. Finally, we argue that the density perturbations due to quantum fluctuations within the condensate give rise to a scale invariant spectrum. This therefore provides a viable alternative to inflation, which is not associated with the well-known problems associated with the latter.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Modern Physics DSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207