Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The “foamy” nature of spacetime at the Planck scale was an idea first introduced by John Wheeler in the 1950s. And for the last twenty years or so it has been debated whether those inherent uncertainties in time and path-length might also accumulate in transiting electromagnetic wavefronts, resulting in measurable blurring for images of distant galaxies and quasars. A confusing aspect is that “pointlike” objects will always be blurred out somewhat by the optics of a telescope, especially in the optical. But it turns out that Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) are more useful to test this, and have been observed by a host of ground-based and space-based telescopes, including by the Fermi observatory for well over a decade. And a recent one was unprecedented: GRB221009A was extremely bright, allowing follow-up from the infrared through the ultraviolet to X-rays and gamma-rays, including a first association with photons at high TeV energies. I will discuss how that observation is in direct tension with the calculus of how spacetime “foaminess” can add up in an image of a pointsource at cosmological distances, which at high-enough energy could spread these out over the whole sky without resulting in photon loss. A simple multiwavelength average of foam-induced blurring consistent with holographic quantum gravity is described, analogous to atmospheric seeing from the ground. This fits with measured instrumental point-spread functions and with the highest-energy localization of GRB221009A, resolving the observational issues and pointing to a key physical implication: spacetime does not look smooth.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".