A second look at transition amplitudes in (2 + 1)-dimensional causal dynamical triangulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Studying transition amplitudes in (2 + 1)-dimensional causal dynamical triangulations, Cooperman and Miller discovered speculative evidence for Lorentzian quantum geometries emerging from its Euclidean path integral (Cooperman and Miller 2014 Class. Quantum Grav . 31 035012). On the basis of this evidence, Cooperman and Miller conjectured that Lorentzian de Sitter spacetime, not Euclidean de Sitter space, dominates the ground state of the quantum geometry of causal dynamical triangulations on large scales, a scenario akin to that of the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal in which Lorentzian spacetimes dominate a Euclidean path integral (Hartle and Hawking 1983 Phys. Rev . D 28 2960). We argue against this conjecture: we propose a more straightforward explanation of their findings, and we proffer evidence for the Euclidean nature of these seemingly Lorentzian quantum geometries. This explanation reveals another manner in which the Euclidean path integral of causal dynamical triangulations behaves correctly in its semiclassical limit—the implementation and interaction of multiple constraints.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".