MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385450430 · doi:10.1038/s42005-023-01306-w

General formalism of the quantum equivalence principle

2023· article· en· W4385450430 on OpenAlexafffund
Saurya Das, Mitja Fridman, Gaetano Lambiase

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFormalism (music)Theoretical physicsEquivalence (formal languages)QuantumPhysicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsMathematical physicsPure mathematicsCalculus (dental)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A consistent theory of quantum gravity will require a fully quantum formulation of the classical equivalence principle. Such a formulation has been recently proposed in terms of the equality of the rest, inertial and gravitational mass operators, and for non-relativistic particles in a weak gravitational field. In this work, we propose a generalization to a fully relativistic formalism of the quantum equivalence principle, valid for all background space-times, as well as for massive bosons and fermions. The principle is trivially satisfied for massless particles. We show that if the equivalence principle is broken at the quantum level, it implies the modification of the standard Lorentz transformations in flat space-time and a corresponding modification of the metric in curved space-time by the different mass ratios. In other words, the observed geometry would effectively depend on the properties of the test particle. Testable predictions of potential violations of the quantum equivalence principle are proposed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications PhysicsSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207