MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404140002 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/11/004

Bounds on the charge of the graviton using gravitational wave observations

2024· article· en· W4404140002 on OpenAlexaff
Sreejith Nair, A. Vijaykumar, Sourav Sarkar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGravitonGravitational waveCharge (physics)GravitationTheoretical physicsParticle physicsGravitational energyQuantum electrodynamicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract If the graviton possesses a non-zero charge q g , gravitational waves (GW) originating from astrophysical sources would experience an additional time delay due to intergalactic magnetic fields. This would result in a modification of the phase evolution of the observed GW signal similar to the effect induced by a massive graviton. As a result, we can reinterpret the most recent upper limits on the graviton's mass as constraints on the joint mass-charge parameter space, finding | q g |/ e < 3 × 10 -34 where e represents the charge of an electron. Additionally, we illustrate that a charged graviton would introduce a constant phase difference in the gravitational waves detected by two spatially separated GW detectors due to the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Using the non-observation of such a phase difference for the GW event GW190814, we establish a mass-independent constraint | q g |/ e < 2 × 10 -26 . To the best of our knowledge, our results constitute the first-ever bounds on the charge of the graviton. We also discuss various caveats involved in our measurements and prospects for strengthening these bounds with future GW observations.

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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle PhysicsSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207