MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Landauer’s Principle of Minimum Energy Might Place Limits on the Detectability of Gravitons of Certain Mass

2021· article· en· W4226089240 on OpenAlexaff
Ioannis Haranas, Ioannis Gkigkitzis, Kristin Cobbett, Ryan Gauthier

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Applied Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravitonPhysicsRange (aeronautics)Function (biology)Particle physicsMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsGravitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to Landauer’s principle, the energy of a particle may be used to record or erase N number of information bits within the thermal bath. The maximum number of information N recorded by the particle in the heat bath is found to be inversely proportional to its temperature T. If at least one bit of information is transferred from the particle to the medium, then the particle might exchange information with the medium. Therefore for at least one bit of information, the limiting mass that can carry or transform information assuming a temperature T= 2.73 K is equal to m = 4.718´10-40 kg which is many orders of magnitude smaller that the masse of most of today’s elementary particles. Next, using the corresponding temperature of a graviton relic and assuming at least one bit of information the corresponding graviton mass is calculated and from that, a relation for the number of information N carried by a graviton as a function of the graviton mass mgr is derived. Furthermore, the range of information number contained in a graviton is also calculated for the given range of graviton mass as given by Nieto and Goldhaber, from which we find that the range of the graviton is inversely proportional to the information number N. Finally, treating the gravitons as harmonic oscillators in an enclosure of size R we derive the range of a graviton as a function of the cosmological parameters in the present era.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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