MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004965364 · doi:10.1142/s0217751x03015957

Brane Gases on K3 and Calabi–Yau Manifolds

2003· article· en· W2004965364 on OpenAlexaff
Damien A. Easson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics A · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsHolonomyCompactification (mathematics)BraneSuperstring theoryTheoretical physicsHeterotic string theoryBrane cosmologyString theoryCalabi–Yau manifoldString (physics)SupersymmetryMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We initiate the study of Brane Gas Cosmology (BGC) on manifolds with nontrivial holonomy. Such compactifications are required within the context of superstring theory in order to make connections with realistic particle physics. We study the dynamics of brane gases constructed from various string theories on background spaces having a K3 submanifold. The K3 compactifications provide a stepping stone for generalizing the model to the case of a full Calabi–Yau threefold. Duality symmetries are discussed within a cosmological context. Using a duality, we arrive at an N=2 theory in four dimensions compactified on a Calabi–Yau manifold with SU(3) holonomy. We argue that the Brane Gas model compactified on such spaces maintains the successes of the trivial toroidal compactification while greatly enhancing its connection to particle physics. The initial state of the universe is taken to be a small, hot and dense gas of p-branes near thermal equilibrium. The universe has no initial singularity and the dynamics of string winding modes allow three spatial dimensions to grow large, providing a possible solution to the dimensionality problem of string theory.

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 score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations61
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Modern Physics ASame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207