Feasibility analysis of a proposed test of quantum gravity via optical magnetometry in xenon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an analysis of the sensitivity limits of a proposed experimental search for quantum gravity, using an approach based on optical magnetometry in the noble gas isotope $^{129}\mathrm{Xe}$. The analysis relies on a general uncertainty principle model that is consistent with most formulations of quantum gravity theory, where the canonical uncertainty relations are modified by a leading-order correction term that is linear in momentum. In turn, this correction modifies the magnetic moment of the spin-polarized $^{129}\mathrm{Xe}$ atoms that are immersed in a magnetic field in the proposed experiment, which results in a velocity-dependent variation of their Larmor frequency, that is detected via two-photon laser spectroscopy. The thermal distribution of atomic velocities, in conjunction with the Doppler effect, is used to scan the interrogating laser over different atomic velocities and search for a corresponding variation in their Larmor frequencies. We show that the existing bounds on the leading-order quantum gravity correction can be improved by ${10}^{7}$ with existing technology, where another factor of ${10}^{2}$ is possible with near-future technical capabilities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".