MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984445030 · doi:10.1088/0264-9381/22/15/008

Mass change and motion of a scalar charge in cosmological spacetimes

2005· article· en· W1984445030 on OpenAlexaff
Roland Haas, Eric Poisson

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsSpacetimeDe Sitter universeClassical mechanicsScalar (mathematics)Point particleCosmologyGeodesicUniverseMathematical physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuing previous work reported in an earlier paper [L.M. Burko, A.I. Harte, and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 65, 124006 (2002)] we calculate the self-force acting on a point scalar charge in a wide class of cosmological spacetimes. The self-force produces two types of effect. The first is a time-changing inertial mass, and this is calculated exactly for a particle at rest relative to the cosmological fluid. We show that for certain cosmological models, the mass decreases and then increases back to its original value. For all other models except de Sitter spacetime, the mass is restored only to a fraction of its original value. For de Sitter spacetime the mass steadily decreases. The second effect is a deviation relative to geodesic motion, and we calculate this for a charge that moves slowly relative to the dust in a matter-dominated cosmology. We show that the net effect of the self-force is to push on the particle. We show that this is not an artifact of the scalar theory: The electromagnetic self-force acting on an electrically charged particle also pushes on the particle. The paper concludes with a demonstration that the pushing effect can also occur in the context of slow-motion electrodynamics in flat spacetime.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations28
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207