MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970234367 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.124014

Quantum astrometric observables: Time delay in classical and quantum gravity

2012· article· en· W1970234367 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Igor Khavkine

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsObservableQuantum gravityCausality (physics)PhysicsQuantumCausal structureTheoretical physicsClassical mechanicsInertial frame of referenceDiffeomorphismQuantum mechanicsStatistical physicsMathematicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A class of diffeomorphism-invariant, physical observables, so-called astrometric observables, is introduced. A particularly simple example, the time delay, which expresses the difference between two initially synchronized proper time clocks in relative inertial motion, is analyzed in detail. It is found to satisfy some interesting inequalities related to the causal structure of classical Lorentzian spacetimes. Thus it can serve as a probe of causal structure and, in particular, of violations of causality. A quantum model of this observable as well as the calculation of its variance due to vacuum fluctuations in quantum linearized gravity are sketched. The question of whether the causal inequalities are still satisfied by quantized gravity, which is pertinent to the nature of causality in quantum gravity, is raised, but it is shown that perturbative calculations cannot provide a definite answer. Some potential applications of astrometric observables in quantum gravity are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207