MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2925121468 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.083512

Numerical simulations of gravitational waves from early-universe turbulence

2020· article· en· W2925121468 on OpenAlexaff
Alberto Roper Pol, Sayan Mandal, Axel Brandenburg, Tina Kahniashvili, Arthur Kosowsky

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersShota Rustaveli National Science FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsGravitational waveTurbulenceComputational physicsHubble volumeMagnetohydrodynamic turbulenceWave turbulenceClassical mechanicsPlasmaAstrophysicsMagnetohydrodynamicsMechanicsMetric expansion of spaceDark energyCosmologyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We perform direct numerical simulations of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence in the early universe and numerically compute the resulting stochastic background of gravitational waves and relic magnetic fields. These simulations do not make the simplifying assumptions of earlier analytic work. If the turbulence is assumed to have an energy-carrying scale that is about a hundredth of the Hubble radius at the time of generation, as expected in a first-order phase transition, the peak of gravitational wave power will be in the mHz frequency range for a signal produced at the electroweak scale. The efficiency of gravitational wave (GW) production varies significantly with how the turbulence is driven. Detectability of turbulence at the electroweak scale by the planned Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) requires anywhere from 0.1% to 10% of the thermal plasma energy density to be in plasma motions or magnetic fields, depending on the model of the driving process. Our results predict a new universal form below the spectral peak frequency that is shallower than previously thought. This implies larger values of the GW energy spectra in the low-frequency range. This extends the range where turbulence is detectable with LISA to lower frequencies, corresponding to higher energy scales than the assumed energy-carrying scale.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.447
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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations159
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207