MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104673529 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0907.2939

Comments on quantum gravity and entanglement

2009· preprint· en· W2104673529 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Van Raamsdonk

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2009
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpacetimeQuantum entanglementQuantum gravityPhysicsTheoretical physicsQuantumDuality (order theory)Quantum spacetimeCausal setsLoop quantum gravityDegrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)Hořava–Lifshitz gravitySpin foamClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsQuantum field theory in curved spacetimeQuantum processQuantum dynamicsMathematicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this note, we attempt to provide some insights into the structure of non-perturbative descriptions of quantum gravity using known examples of gauge-theory / gravity duality. We argue that in familiar examples, a quantum description of spacetime can be associated with a manifold-like structure in which particular patches of spacetime are associated with states or density matrices in specific quantum systems. We argue that quantum entanglement between microscopic degrees of freedom plays an essential role in the emergence of a dual spacetime from the nonperturbative degrees of freedom. In particular, in at least some cases, classically connected spacetimes may be understood as particular quantum superpositions of disconnected spacetimes.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0020.009
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.153 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations169
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207