MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381888804 · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ace14a

Triple interference, non-linear Talbot effect and gravitization of the quantum

2023· article· en· W4381888804 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Per Berglund, Andrew Geraci, Tristan Hübsch, David Mattingly, Djordje Minić

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueEuropean CommissionHeising-Simons FoundationJulian Schwinger Foundation for Physics ResearchCERNJohn Templeton FoundationU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsQuantum gravityClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsOpen quantum systemQuantumTheoretical physicsQuantum geometryGravitational fieldGravitationQuantum processQuantum operationQuantum dynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recently we have discussed a new approach to the problem of quantum gravity in which the quantum mechanical structures that are traditionally fixed, such as the Fubini–Study metric in the Hilbert space of states, become dynamical and so implement the idea of gravitizing the quantum. In this paper we elaborate on a specific test of this new approach to quantum gravity using triple interference in a varying gravitational field. Our discussion is driven by a profound analogy with recent triple-path interference experiments performed in the context of non-linear optics. We emphasize that the triple interference experiment in a varying gravitational field would deeply influence the present understanding of the kinematics of quantum gravity and quantum gravity phenomenology. We also discuss the non-linear Talbot effect as another striking phenomenological probe of gravitization of the geometry of quantum 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 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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207