MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013289808 · doi:10.1142/s0218271805008029

THE CASE FOR UNQUANTIZED GRAVITY

2005· article· en· W2013289808 on OpenAlexaff
F. I. Cooperstock

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics D · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGravitonTheoretical physicsCosmological constant problemGravitational waveQuantum gravityGeneral relativityCosmological constantGravitationGravitational fieldQuantization (signal processing)Classical mechanicsCosmologyQuantumDark energyAstrophysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this essay, we explore the hypothesis that gravity is best viewed as a non-quantized field, at least not in the usual sense of being quantized. It is linked to the energy localization hypothesis that energy, including the contribution from gravity, is localized in the region of the energy–momentum tensor. Evidence is gathered from among other aspects, the peculiar nature of gravitational plane waves and indirectly from the fact that there are no experimental results that point to a necessity for quantization. Should this hypothesis prove to be correct, it would favor the negation of the very existence of gravitons since gravitational waves would be seen as purely classical general relativistic constructs which carry no energy. Most significantly, unquantized gravity would turn the evidently unsolvable cosmological constant problem, viewed by various experts as the major crisis of modern physics, into a non-problem. In spite of this, there are indications to suggest that the study of limiting properties will lead to new insights into both the essence of space–time and the quantum world.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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