MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009068702 · doi:10.3390/universe9110473

How Long Does the Hydrogen Atom Live?

2023· article· en· W3009068702 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniverse · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTRIUMFU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsProtonHydrogenRadiative transferHydrogen atomBranching fractionAtomic physicsNeutronBaryonNuclear physicsProton decayParticle physicsQuantum mechanicsNeutrino

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is possible that the proton is stable while atomic hydrogen is not. This is the case in models with new particles carrying baryon number which are light enough to be stable themselves, but heavy enough so that proton decay is kinematically blocked. Models of new physics that explain the neutron lifetime anomaly generically have this feature, allowing for atomic hydrogen to decay through electron capture on a proton. We calculate the radiative hydrogen decay rate involving the emission of a few hundred keV photon, which makes this process experimentally detectable. In particular, we show that the low energy part of the Borexino spectrum is sensitive to radiative hydrogen decay, and turn this into a limit on the hydrogen lifetime of order 1030s or stronger. For models where the neutron mixes with a dark baryon, χ, this limits the mixing angle to roughly 10−11, restricting the n→χγ branching to 10−4, over a wide range of parameter space.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.187 · 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