MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894641886 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.086017

Relational Hamiltonian for group field theory

2019· article· en· W2894641886 on OpenAlexafffund
Edward Wilson-Ewing

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGroup field theoryHamiltonian (control theory)Mathematical physicsScalar field theoryScalar fieldPhysicsMathematicsQuantum gravityLoop quantum gravityClassical mechanicsTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a massless scalar field as a clock variable, the Legendre transform of a group field theory Lagrangian gives a relational Hamiltonian. In the classical theory, it is natural to define ``equal relational time'' Poisson brackets, where ``equal time'' corresponds to equal values of the scalar field clock. The quantum theory can then be defined by imposing equal relational time commutation relations for the fundamental operators of the theory, with the states being elements of a Fock space with their evolution determined by the relational Hamiltonian operator. A particularly interesting type of states are condensates, as they may correspond to the cosmological sector of group field theory. For the relational Hamiltonian considered in this paper, the coarse-grained dynamics of a simple family of condensate states agree exactly with the Friedmann equations in the classical limit and also include quantum gravity corrections that ensure the big bang singularity is replaced by a bounce.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.393 · 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

Citations43
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207