MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034790387 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.65.043501

No-go theorem for horizon-shielded self-tuning singularities

2002· article· en· W2034790387 on OpenAlexaff
James M. Cline, Hassan Firouzjahi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBraneSingularityPhysicsCurvatureGravitational singularityHorizonAction (physics)Mathematical physicsTheoretical physicsClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysisMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We derive a simple no-go theorem relating to self-tuning solutions to the cosmological constant for observers on a brane, which rely on a singularity in an extra dimension. The theorem shows that it is impossible to shield the singularity from the brane by a horizon, unless the positive energy condition $(\ensuremath{\rho}+p>~0)$ is violated in the bulk or on the brane. The result holds regardless of the kinds of fields which are introduced in the bulk or on the brane, whether ${Z}_{2}$ symmetry is imposed at the brane, or whether higher derivative terms of the Gauss-Bonnet form are added to the gravitational part of the action. However, the no-go theorem can be evaded if the three-brane has spatial curvature. We discuss explicit realizations of such solutions which have both self-tuning and a horizon shielding the singularity.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations49
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fieldsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207