Cosmic Strings and The Origins of Globular Clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Globular clusters are galactic structures whose origin is not well understood. In this paper we propose that their origin may be found in the accretions formed around cosmic string loops. Methods: To test this hypothesis we derived the mass distribution that would be associated with the ac- cretions and compared it to the observed mass distribution of globular clusters in our galaxy. Our derived distribution left us one free parameter (cosmic string tension) which we varied to optimize the fit. Once optimized, we compared the shape of the distribution and the number density that our model predicted with empirical observations. Later, we derived how velocity effects would alter the shape of this distribution. Results: We achieved significant agreement between our model and observed values. Furthermore, the op- timal tension corresponds to particle physics theories that have not been ruled out. Our analysis further suggests that globular clusters form around slowly moving (< 3% the speed of light) cosmic string loops; any model with significantly faster cosmic string loops would contradict our hypothesis. Limitations: Our results were obtained by using numerous approximations (such as the Zel’dovich approx- imation) and thus should be treated as an order of magnitude estimation. Our data was also limited to observed globular clusters within the Milky Way, limiting our sample size to approximately 120 globular clusters. Conclusions: We managed to obtain strong agreement between our model and observed globular clusters, suggesting that they may be seeded by cosmic string loops. This also serves to explain many other charac- teristics of globular clusters, such as age, density and location. The analyses used in this report can also be used when considering the formation of other accretion objects, such as ultra-compact-minihalos.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".