Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamical effects in general relativity have been finally, relatively recently observed by LIGO [B. P. Abbott et al., Living Rev. Relativity 19, 1 (2016).]. These effects correspond to gravitational waves created by the coalescence of black holes or neutron stars billions of years ago and billions of light years away from their sources. To be able to measure these signals, great care has to be taken to minimize all sources of noise in the detector. One of the sources of noise is called Newtonian noise, the name based on the notion that close by sources would create essentially instantaneous Newtonian gravitational fields. In this article we present an analysis of the dynamical (time dependent) nature of the Newtonian noise. In that respect, it is a misnomer to call it Newtonian noise, because the Newtonian theory does not afford any dynamical notion of the gravitational field. We will, in fact, do our analysis in the context of Einsteinian general relativity. The dynamical aspects of the nature of the Newtonian noise have heretofore been disregarded as they were considered negligible. However, we demonstrate that they are indeed not far from the realm of being measurable. They could be used to validate Einsteinian general relativity or to give valuable information on the true dynamical nature of gravity. One fundamental question, for example, is a direct measurement the speed of propagation of gravitational effects and the verification that it is indeed the same as the speed of light? We propose a simple laboratory experiment that could affirm or deny this proposition. We also analyze the possibility of the detection of large geophysical events, such as earthquakes. We find that large seismic events seem to be easily observable with the present ensemble of gravitational wave detectors. The ensemble of gravitational wave detectors could easily serve as a system of early warning for otherwise catastrophic seismic events.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".