MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092384566 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.085009

Motion of a mirror under infinitely fluctuating quantum vacuum stress

2014· article· en· W2092384566 on OpenAlexaff
Qingdi Wang, W. G. Unruh

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsVacuum expectation valueClassical mechanicsVacuum energyQuantum fluctuationGravitational fieldUnruh effectScalar fieldAccelerationPosition (finance)Vacuum stateQED vacuumGravitationPlane mirrorScalar (mathematics)Negative energyField (mathematics)Gravitational accelerationQuantumQuantum mechanicsOpticsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The actual value of the quantum vacuum energy density is generally regarded as irrelevant in nongravitational physics. However, this paper presents a nongravitational system where this value does have physical significance. The system is a mirror with an internal degree of freedom that interacts with a scalar field. We find that the force exerted on the mirror by the field vacuum undergoes wild fluctuations with a magnitude proportional to the value of the vacuum energy density, which is mathematically infinite. This infinite fluctuating force gives infinite instantaneous acceleration of the mirror. We show that this infinite fluctuating force and infinite instantaneous acceleration make sense because they will not result in infinite fluctuation of the mirror's position. On the contrary, the mirror's fluctuating motion will be confined in a small region due to two special properties of the quantum vacuum: (1) the vacuum friction that resists the mirror's motion and (2) the strong anticorrelation of vacuum fluctuations that constantly changes the direction of the mirror's infinite instantaneous acceleration and thus cancels the effect of infinities to make the fluctuation of the mirror's position finite.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.330
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations40
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207