MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129325281 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2020-0556

Modeling of traversable wormholes in exponential <i>f</i>(<i>R</i>, <i>T</i>) gravity

2021· article· en· W3129325281 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chanchal Chawla, Archana Dixit, Anirudh Pradhan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWormholePhysicsExponential functionTRACE (psycholinguistics)Exotic matterMathematical physicsLogarithmGeneral relativityFunction (biology)Exponential decayTheoretical physicsCosmological constantConstant (computer programming)Dark energyQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysisCosmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present communication, we have studied the existence of wormholes described by a logarithmic shape function, in the exponential f(R, T) gravity given by f(R, T) = R + 2ξe ζt where ξ and ζ are arbitrary constants, under three different sets of physical constraints. The logarithmic shape function is well behaved, satisfying all the necessary constraints for traversable and asymptotically flat wormholes. The obtained wormhole solutions are analyzed from the energy conditions for different values of involved physical constants. It has been observed that our proposed shape function for the exponential form of f(R, T) gravity represents the existence of exotic matter with a standard violation of the NEC. Moreover, for the trace T = 0, for the general relativity case with R being replaced by R + 2, the wormhole geometry has been analyzed to prove the existence of exotic matter. Further, the behaviour of physical parameters, such as the energy density ρ, the trace T, and anisotropy parameter Δ, describing the geometry of the universe has been presented with the help of graphs.

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 score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207