MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3205180805 · doi:10.1007/jhep10(2021)102

The universe from a single particle. Part II

2021· article· en· W3205180805 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Freedman, Modjtaba Shokrian Zini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersGovernment of CanadaInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueAspen Center for Physics
KeywordsPhysicsTheoretical physicsHiggs bosonHiggs mechanismString theoryContext (archaeology)Spontaneous symmetry breakingUniverseSymmetry breakingString (physics)Quantum mechanicsHiggs field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We continue to explore, in the context of a toy model, the hypothesis that the interacting universe we see around us could result from single particle (undergraduate) quantum mechanics via a novel spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) acting at the level of probability distributions on Hamiltonians (rather than on states as is familiar from both Ginzburg-Landau superconductivity and the Higgs mechanism). In an earlier paper [1] we saw qubit structure emerge spontaneously on ℂ4 and ℂ8, and in this work we see ℂ6 spontaneously decomposing as ℂ2 ⊗ ℂ3 and very curiously ℂ5 (and ℂ7) splitting off one (one or three) directions and then factoring. This evidence provides additional support for the broad hypothesis: Nature will seek out tensor decompositions where none are present. We consider how this finding may form a basis for the origins of interaction and ask if it can be related to established foundational discussions such as string theory.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→