MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069032624 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.107502

Neutrino velocity and the variability of fundamental constants

2012· article· en· W2069032624 on OpenAlexaff
V. V. Flambaum, M. Pospelov

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUniversality (dynamical systems)PhysicsNeutrinoLimitingLorentz transformationLorentz covarianceSpeed of light (cellular automaton)Particle physicsUnderwaterTensor (intrinsic definition)Statistical physicsTheoretical physicsClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neutrino speed experiments could be viewed not only as tests of Lorentz invariance but also as measurements of limiting propagation speed for all standard model species below certain depth where no direct metrological information is available. The latter option, hypothetically caused by some chameleon-type background, is tested by the neutrino speed experiments. We show that complementary constraints on the same class of models can be obtained with experiments testing clock universality in deep underground/underwater experiments. By considering the explicit QED model with particle-universal modification of propagation speed by a depth-dependent tensor background, we show that, in general, one should expect shifts of the clock frequencies and clock nonuniversality. Such effects can be larger than predicted by general relativity and can be tested by comparison of the narrow transitions in atomic clocks, which for a generic model could deliver a superior accuracy compared to the neutrino speed experiments.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207