MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118676568 · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac7b05

Detection of gravitational waves using parametric resonance in Bose–Einstein condensates

2022· article· en· W3118676568 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew P. G. Robbins, Niayesh Afshordi, Alan O. Jamison, Robert B. Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCold Atom Physics and Bose-Einstein Condensates
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueUniversity of WaterlooNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAsian Office of Aerospace Research and Development
KeywordsPhysicsGravitational waveDetectorBose–Einstein condensateGravitational-wave observatorySensitivity (control systems)Noise (video)Parametric statisticsSchumann resonancesResonance (particle physics)Parametric oscillatorQuantum electrodynamicsModulation (music)Einstein TelescopeComputational physicsQuantum mechanicsOpticsAcousticsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An interesting proposal for detecting gravitational waves involves quantum metrology of Bose–Einstein condensates (BECs). We consider a forced modulation of the speed of sound of a BEC, whose modulation frequency matches that of an incoming continuous gravitational wave. The speed of sound modulation induces parametric resonance in the BEC, which in turn enhances sensitivity of the BEC to gravitational waves. We find that such a BEC detector could potentially be used to detect gravitational waves across several orders of magnitude in frequency, with the sensitivity depending on the speed of sound, size of the condensate, and frequency of the phonons. We discuss the sensitivity of a possible BEC experiment and comment on the current technological limitations. We also comment on the noise sources as well as what is necessary for such a detector to become feasible.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicCold Atom Physics and Bose-Einstein CondensatesFrench-language works237,207