MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4398776339 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.105027

Quantum transitions, detailed balance, black holes, and nothingness

2024· article· en· W4398776339 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastián Céspedes, S. P. de Alwis, Francesco Muia, Fernando Quevedo

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilScience and Technology Facilities CouncilUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsNothingBalance (ability)QuantumPhysicsQuantum mechanicsPhilosophyEpistemologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider vacuum transitions by bubble nucleation among 4D vacua with different values and signs of the cosmological constant Λ , including both up and down tunnelings. Following the Hamiltonian formalism, we explicitly compute the transition probabilities for all possible combinations of initial and final values of Λ and find that up tunneling is allowed starting not only from dS spacetime but also from AdS and Minkowski spacetimes. We trace the difference with the Euclidean approach, where these transitions are found to be forbidden, to the difference of treating the latter spacetimes as pure (vacuum) states rather than mixed states with correspondingly vanishing or infinite entropy. We point out that these transitions are best understood as limits of the corresponding transitions with black holes in the zero mass limit M→0 . We find that detailed balance is satisfied provided we use the Hartle-Hawking sign of the wave function for nucleating spacetimes. In the formal limit Λ→−∞ , the transition rates for anti–de Sitter (AdS) to dS agree with both the Hartle-Hawking and Vilenkin amplitudes for the creation of dS from nothing. This is consistent with a proposal of Brown and Dahlen to define “nothing” as AdS in this limit. For M≠0 , the detailed balance is satisfied only in a range of mass values. We compute the bubble trajectory after nucleation and find that, contrary to the M=0 case, the trajectory does not correspond to the open universe slicing of dS. We briefly discuss the relevance of our results to the string landscape. Published by the American Physical Society 2024

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→