MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2270583871 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.122006

Gravitationally induced quantum transitions

2016· article· en· W2270583871 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandre Landry, M. B. Paranjape

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUltracold neutronsPhysicsNeutronInfinitesimalQuantumOmegaAmplitudeGravitational fieldGravitationQuantum mechanicsProbability amplitudeField (mathematics)Quantum electrodynamicsAtomic physicsQuantum dynamicsQuantum operation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we calculate the probability for resonantly inducing transitions in quantum states due to time-dependent gravitational perturbations. Contrary to common wisdom, the probability of inducing transitions is not infinitesimally small. We consider a system of ultracold neutrons, which are organized according to the energy levels of the Schr\"odinger equation in the presence of the Earth's gravitational field. Transitions between energy levels are induced by an oscillating driving force of frequency $\ensuremath{\omega}$. The driving force is created by oscillating a macroscopic mass in the neighborhood of the system of neutrons. The neutron lifetime is approximately 880 sec while the probability of transitions increases as ${t}^{2}$. Hence, the optimal strategy is to drive the system for two lifetimes. The transition amplitude then is of the order of $1.06\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}5}$, and hence with a million ultracold neutrons, one should be able to observe transitions.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.423 · 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.→Same topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research→French-language works237,207→