MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phenomenologically Viable Lorentz-Violating Quantum Gravity

2009· article· en· W2080577262 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas P. Sotiriou, Matt Visser, Silke Weinfurtner

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsPhysicsQuantum gravityGeneral relativityTheoretical physicsLorentz covarianceHamiltonian (control theory)Cosmological constantMassive gravityLorentz transformationParity (physics)Sign (mathematics)Loop quantum gravityHořava–Lifshitz gravityClassical mechanicsMathematical physicsQuantumGravitationGravitonQuantum mechanicsMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Horava's "Lifschitz point gravity" has many desirable features, but in its original incarnation one is forced to accept a nonzero cosmological constant of the wrong sign to be compatible with observation. We develop an extension of Horava's model that abandons "detailed balance" and regains parity invariance, and in 3+1 dimensions exhibit all five marginal (renormalizable) and four relevant (super-renormalizable) operators, as determined by power counting. We also consider the classical limit of this theory, evaluate the Hamiltonian and supermomentum constraints, and extract the classical equations of motion in a form similar to the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner formulation of general relativity. This puts the model in a framework amenable to developing detailed precision tests.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations277
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207