MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Topological Assessment of Entangled Particles on Black Hole Horizons

2018· preprint· en· W2899032586 on OpenAlexaff
Arturo Tozzi, James F. Peters

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRelativity and Gravitational Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntipodal pointHypersphereQuantum entanglementPhysicsTheoretical physicsBlack hole (networking)SpacetimeTopology (electrical circuits)Algebraic numberSurface (topology)Dimension (graph theory)Quantum mechanicsQuantumGeometryPure mathematicsMathematicsCombinatoricsComputer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The entangled antipodal points on black hole surfaces, recently described by t’Hooft, display an unnoticed relationship with the Borsuk-Ulam theorem. Taking into account this observation and other recent claims, suggesting that quantum entanglement takes place on the antipodal points of a S3 hypersphere, a novel framework can be developed, based on algebraic topological issues: a feature encompassed in an S2 unentangled state gives rise, when projected one dimension higher, to two entangled particles. This allows us to achieve a mathematical description of the holographic principle occurring in S2. Furthermore, our observations let us to hypothesize that a) quantum entanglement might occur in a four-dimensional spacetime, while disentanglement might be achieved on a motionless, three-dimensional manifold; b) a negative mass might exist on the surface of a black hole.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicRelativity and Gravitational TheoryFrench-language works237,207