Casimir scaling in gauge theories with a gap: Deformed QCD as a toy model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study a Casimir-like behavior in a ``deformed QCD.'' We demonstrate that for the system defined on a manifold of size $\mathbb{L}$, the difference $\ensuremath{\Delta}E\ensuremath{\equiv}E\ensuremath{-}{E}_{\mathrm{Mink}}$ between the energies of a system in a nontrivial background and Minkowski space-time geometry exhibits the Casimir-like scaling $\ensuremath{\Delta}E\ensuremath{\sim}{\mathbb{L}}^{\ensuremath{-}1}$, despite the presence of a mass gap in the system, in contrast with naive expectation $\ensuremath{\Delta}E\ensuremath{\sim}\mathrm{exp}(\ensuremath{-}m\mathbb{L})$, which would normally originate from any physical massive propagating degrees of freedom consequent to conventional dispersion relations. The Casimir-like behavior in our system comes instead from a nondispersive (``contact'') term which is not related to any physical propagating degrees of freedom, such that the naive argument is simply not applicable. These ideas can be explicitly tested in weakly coupled deformed QCD. We comment on profound consequences for cosmology of this effect if it persists in real strongly coupled QCD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".