MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Reformulation of the Cosmological Constant Problem

2020· article· en· W3045938708 on OpenAlexafffund
Qingdi Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsCosmological constantVacuum energySpacetimeCosmological constant problemMetric expansion of spaceDark energyQuantum field theory in curved spacetimeQuantum fluctuationDe Sitter universeFriedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metricClassical mechanicsTheoretical physicsUniverseQuantumQuantum gravityQuantum mechanicsCosmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The standard formulation of the cosmological constant problem is based on one critical assumption-the spacetime is homogeneous and isotropic, which is true only on cosmological scales. However, this problem is caused by extremely small scale (Planck scale) quantum fluctuations and, at that scale, the spacetime is highly inhomogeneous and anisotropic. The homogeneous Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric used in the standard formulation is inadequate to describe such small scale dynamics of the spacetime. In this Letter, we reformulate the cosmological constant problem by using a general inhomogeneous metric. The fine-tuning problem does not arise in the reformulation since the large gravitational effect of the quantum vacuum is hidden by small scale spacetime fluctuations. The stress energy tensor fluctuations of the quantum fields vacuum could serve as "dark energy" to drive the accelerating expansion of the Universe through a weak parametric resonance effect.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review Letters→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→