MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098993506

Consistent probabilities in loop quantum cosmology

2013· article· en· W3098993506 on OpenAlexaff
David Craig, Parampreet Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueCivil War Book Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsLoop quantum cosmologyCosmologyQuantum cosmologyLoop (graph theory)QuantumLoop quantum gravityTheoretical physicsMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsQuantum gravity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fundamental issue for any quantum cosmological theory is to specify how probabilities can be assigned to various quantum events or sequences of events such as the occurrence of singularities or bounces. In previous work, we have demonstrated how this issue can be successfully addressed within the consistent histories approach to quantum theory for Wheeler-DeWitt-quantized cosmological models. In this work, we generalize that analysis to the exactly solvable loop quantization of a spatially flat, homogeneous and isotropic cosmology sourced with a massless, minimally coupled scalar field known as sLQC. We provide an explicit, rigorous and complete decoherent-histories formulation for this model and compute the probabilities for the occurrence of a quantum bounce versus a singularity. Using the scalar field as an emergent internal time, we show for generic states that the probability for a singularity to occur in this model is zero, and that of a bounce is unity, complementing earlier studies of the expectation values of the volume and matter density in this theory. We also show from the consistent histories point of view that all states in this model, whether quantum or classical, achieve arbitrarily large volume in the limit of infinite 'past' or 'future' scalar 'time', in the sense that the wave function evaluated at any arbitrary fixed value of the volume vanishes in that limit. Finally, we briefly discuss certain misconceptions concerning the utility of the consistent histories approach in these models. © 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd.

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)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0020.010
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations40
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCivil War Book ReviewSame topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207