MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023945983 · doi:10.1142/s0217732311034840

DOES ENTROPIC GRAVITY BOUND THE MASSES OF THE PHOTON AND GRAVITON?

2011· article· en· W2023945983 on OpenAlexaff
Jonas Mureika, Robert B. Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Physics Letters A · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGravitonPhotonEntropic gravityMassive gravityGravitationTheoretical physicsParticle physicsQuantum gravityQuantum electrodynamicsClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsQuantumLoop quantum gravity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If the information transfer between test particle and holographic screen in entropic gravity respects both the uncertainty principle and causality, a lower limit on the number of bits in the universe relative to its mass may be derived. Furthermore, these limits indicate particles that putatively travel at the speed of light — the photon and/or graviton — have a nonzero mass m ≥10-68 kg . This result is found to be in excellent agreement with current experimental mass bounds on the graviton and photon, suggesting that entropic gravity may be the result of a (recent) softly-broken local symmetry. Stronger bounds emerge from consideration of ultradense matter such as neutron stars, yielding limits of m ≥10-48–10-50 kg , barely within the experimental photon range and outside that of the graviton. We find that for black holes these criteria cannot be satisfied, and suggest some possible implications of this result.

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)0.013
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0020.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.209
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Physics Letters ASame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207