MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990044200 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.043531

Relating gravitational wave constraints from primordial nucleosynthesis, pulsar timing, laser interferometers, and the CMB: Implications for the early universe

2008· article· en· W1990044200 on OpenAlexaff
Latham A. Boyle, Alessandra Buonanno

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAlfred P. Sloan FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsOmegaBig Bang nucleosynthesisEquation of stateCosmic microwave backgroundGravitational wavePulsarUniverseMathematical physicsAstrophysicsNucleosynthesisQuantum mechanicsStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We derive a general equation relating the gravitational-wave observables $r$ and ${\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{0}^{\mathrm{gw}}(f)$; or the observables ${\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{0}^{\mathrm{gw}}({f}_{1})$ and ${\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{0}^{\mathrm{gw}}({f}_{2})$. Here, $r$ is the so-called ``tensor-to-scalar ratio,'' which is constrained by cosmic-microwave-background experiments; and ${\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{0}^{\mathrm{gw}}(f)$ is the energy spectrum of primordial gravitational waves, which is constrained, e.g., by pulsar-timing measurements, laser-interferometer experiments, and the standard big bang nucleosynthesis bound. Differentiating this equation yields a new expression for the tilt $d\mathrm{ln}{\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{0}^{\mathrm{gw}}(f)/d\mathrm{ln}f$ of the present-day gravitational-wave spectrum. The relationship between $r$ and ${\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{0}^{\mathrm{gw}}(f)$ depends sensitively on the uncertain physics of the early universe, and we show that this uncertainty may be encapsulated (in a model-independent way) by two quantities: $\stackrel{^}{w}(f)$ and ${\stackrel{^}{n}}_{t}(f)$, where ${\stackrel{^}{n}}_{t}(f)$ is a certain logarithmic average over ${n}_{t}(k)$ (the primordial tensor spectral index); and $\stackrel{^}{w}(f)$ is a certain logarithmic average over $\stackrel{\texttildelow{}}{w}(a)$ (the effective equation-of-state parameter in the early universe, after horizon re-entry). Here, the effective equation-of-state parameter $\stackrel{\texttildelow{}}{w}(a)$ is a combination of the ordinary equation-of-state parameter $w(a)$ and the bulk viscosity $\ensuremath{\zeta}(a)$. Thus, by comparing observational constraints on $r$ and ${\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{0}^{\mathrm{gw}}(f)$, one obtains (remarkably tight) constraints in the ${\stackrel{^}{w}(f),{\stackrel{^}{n}}_{t}(f)}$ plane. In particular, this is the best way to constrain (or detect) the presence of a stiff energy component (with $w>1/3$) in the early universe, prior to big bang nucleosynthesis. (The discovery of such a component would be no more surprising than the discovery of a tiny cosmological constant at late times!) Finally, although most of our analysis does not assume inflation, we point out that if cosmic-microwave-background experiments detect a nonzero value for $r$, then we will immediately obtain (as a free by-product) a new upper bound $\stackrel{^}{w}\ensuremath{\lesssim}0.55$ on the logarithmically averaged effective equation-of-state parameter during the ``primordial dark age'' between the end of inflation and the start of big bang nucleosynthesis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations200
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207