MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spin-energy entanglement of a time-focused neutron

2024· preprint· en· W4394782322 on OpenAlexaff
J. Leiner, Steve Kuhn, S. McKay, Johanna K. Jochum, Fankang Li, Abu Ashik Irfan, Fumiaki Funama, Denis Mettus, L. Beddrich, Christian Franz, Jiazhou Shen, Steven R. Parnell, Robert M. Dalgliesh, Matthew Loyd, Niels Geerits, Gerardo Ortíz, C. Pfleiderer, R. Pynn

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Applied · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersOak Ridge National LaboratoryWorkforce Development for Teachers and ScientistsEuropean Research CouncilScience and Technology Facilities CouncilBasic Energy SciencesOak Ridge Institute for Science and EducationOffice of ScienceBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungU.S. Department of EnergyMunich Center for Quantum Science and TechnologyUT-BattelleBattelleDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsQuantum entanglementSpin (aerodynamics)PhysicsNeutronEnergy (signal processing)Quantum mechanicsNuclear physicsQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum entanglement in a neutron beam? Yup. The spectroscopic technique known as neutron resonant spin echo (NRSE) extracts the dynamical correlation function with comparatively high resolution. Underlying the unique capabilities of NRSE beamlines is how they label the velocity (energy) of neutrons with Larmor spin precession to set up a spin-echo signal. This Letter provides proof of concept that the way such beamlines manipulate the spin and energy of an individual neutron in fact entangles those degrees of freedom, which can be observed with a quantum contextuality witness. This suggests that the technique could serve as a direct probe of entanglement in condensed matter.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review AppliedSame topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207