MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041276237 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.084013

Maxwell equations in a curved spacetime: Spin optics approximation

2020· article· en· W3041276237 on OpenAlexafffund
Valeri P. Frolov

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKillam Trusts
KeywordsPhysicsNull (SQL)Geometrical opticsGeodesicSpacetimeCovariant transformationGeodesics in general relativityClassical mechanicsGravitational waveMaxwell's equationsGeneral relativityGravitoelectromagnetismElectromagnetic radiationPhysical opticsEquations of motionWave propagationWave equationElectromagnetic fieldHelicityOpticsMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysisClassical field theoryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study propagation of high-frequency electromagnetic waves in a curved spacetime. We demonstrate how a modification of the standard geometric optics allows one to include the helicity dependent corrections into the equations of motion of circularly polarized beams of radiation. As a result, polarized light rays are still null but not geodesic curves. To achieve these results we construct null frames associated with a set of (nongeodesic) null rays and use these frames for a description of the high-frequency wave propagation. We call this approach spin optics approximation. It is completely covariant and it can be used in an arbitrary time-dependent gravitational field.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.444 · 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

Citations38
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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