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

How Long Does the Hydrogen Atom Live?

2023· article· en· W3009068702 on OpenAlexafffund
David McKeen, Maxim Pospelov

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.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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

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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniverseSame topicDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207