PreprintCited by 1Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesQuantum Electrodynamics and Casimir Effect

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 256 of the 256 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 103 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe

Open access

Zhang, Alan·2026·arXiv

DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2610.24905arXiv 2610.24905

Open this paper in CoChat — free account Open PDF

Abstract

We study a flat three-torus universe whose contraction is turned around by the negative Casimir energy of Standard Model fields. The trace anomaly forbids conformal matter alone to turn an anisotropic universe around, so matter with $w<1/3$, most cheaply a positive potential, must supply the negative trace; with antiperiodic fermions the Standard Model supplies the negative energy, and the universe turns at an edge of 722 reduced Planck lengths. The turning point can hold only about five quanta of the lowest modes, whereas a reheating coupling in a time-symmetric past would produce radiation exceeding the Casimir energy by at least $10^{94}$, so we read the turn as a beginning rather than a bounce. Negative Casimir energy cannot hold the shape of the torus: its shape state can be real at most once, and for a real Gaussian state survival of the shape on both branches with $90\%$ probability requires that moment to lie within $0.35$ Hubble times of the turn. The natural state, real at the turn, freezes the torus into a nearly rectangular box whose sides typically differ by $16$--$18\%$. The microwave background can read this fossil only if the shortest cycle lies between $0.985$ and about $1.04$ last-scattering diameters. At the turn the Higgs quartic coupling is negative, yet zero-point fluctuations of the gauge zero modes keep the Higgs zero mode near the origin with probability above one half for a top-quark pole mass below $172.96$ GeV, given a curvature coupling $ξ_H\gtrsim0.08$; a pole mass above $173.7$ GeV, within reach of FCC-ee, would exclude this beginning.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

A flat three-torus universe can be turned around from contraction by the negative Casimir energy of Standard Model fields with antiperiodic fermions, at an edge of 722 reduced Planck lengths. The paper argues this turning point is better read as a beginning than a bounce, and derives a top-quark-mass criterion for survival of the Higgs zero mode plus a frozen shape fossil potentially readable in the CMB.

Key findings

The trace anomaly forbids conformal matter alone from turning an anisotropic universe around; matter with $w<1/3$, most cheaply a positive inflaton potential, must supply the negative trace. With antiperiodic fermions the Standard Model Casimir weight is $N_C=+25.515$, and the torus turns at $L_b=722\,M_P^{-1}$.
At the turn the Higgs quartic is negative, but zero-point fluctuations of the constant gauge modes confine the Higgs zero mode down to a finite-volume threshold $\lambda_c\approx -0.0121$, below the Standard Model value $-0.0098$. The Higgs survives with $P_1>1/2$ for a top-quark pole mass below $172.96$ GeV ($m_t(m_t)<163.16$ GeV; $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1180$), and with $P_1\approx 0.73$ for current data given $\xi_H\gtrsim 0.08$.
The turning point can hold only about five quanta of the lowest non-zero modes; a reheating coupling in a time-symmetric past would produce radiation exceeding the Casimir energy by at least $10^{94}$, so the paper reads the turn as a beginning rather than a bounce.
Negative Casimir energy cannot hold the torus shape: the shape state can be real at most once, and for a real Gaussian state survival on both branches with 90% probability requires that moment to lie within $0.35$ Hubble times of the turn. The natural state freezes the torus into a nearly rectangular box whose sides typically differ by 16–18%; the CMB can read this fossil only if the shortest cycle lies between $0.985$ and about $1.04$ last-scattering diameters. A top-quark pole mass above $173.7$ GeV would exclude this beginning (Bayes factor $\lesssim 0.03$).

Methods

The setup is a flat homogeneous three-torus with Einstein gravity sourced by the stress-tensor expectation value, Standard Model fields with a non-minimal Higgs curvature coupling $\xi_H R\Phi^\dagger\Phi$, an inflaton plateau potential, antiperiodic fermions around all three cycles, trivial gauge holonomies, and assumptions A1–A8.
The paper computes Casimir energies via image sums, the zero-mode Hamiltonian of gauge and Higgs fields, one-loop finite-volume matching, a reduced two-dimensional zero-mode model, diffusion Monte Carlo checks in the full-dimensional model, resonance/Siegert widths, a time-dependent hazard for Higgs survival, nonlinear shape evolution, and CMB covariance/Kullback–Leibler divergence for shape readability.
Main inputs include $M_h=125.13$ GeV, $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1180$, direct top mass $172.60\pm0.27$ GeV, matching scale $\mu_b=1/L_b=M_P/722\simeq3.4\times10^{15}$ GeV, NNLO matching and three-loop running; the CMB analysis uses temperature and E-mode covariance for $2\le \ell\le 80$ and 55 deformed tori.

Limitations

The paper states the zero-mode dynamics is computed in a reduced model; full-dimensional DMC checks bound the reduction error at $+0.020$ GeV in the critical mass at $P_1=1/2$. The complete model error is $+0.07/-0.08$ GeV, dominated by the unknown inflation scale; two-loop finite-volume matching is not computed; the top-mass interpretation uncertainty of about $0.5$ GeV dominates present uncertainty, with $P_1$ ranging from 0.50 to 0.86 across mass definitions.
The preparation weight $w_0=0.98$–$0.995$ follows from a time-symmetric minimal-energy-variance rule rather than a first-principles construction; the joint survival of both branches has no decoherent-history probability; PPA and PAA exact thresholds need an anisotropic model; the fully periodic sector is not analyzed; shape and CMB predictions refer to the AAA sector; the forecast assumes idealized full-sky maps; quantum corrections to the survival tail, graviton response, and the joint quantum state of volume, inflaton, and shape remain to be computed.
Evident from the text: the results are conditional on assumptions A1–A8, and many numerical results rely on internal checks and AI-assisted blind reimplementations rather than external peer review or independent observational confirmation.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2610.24905

Cites

256 of 256 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

194 No basis given · 87 Own result · 65 Own method · 62 Sources not found · 57 Own interpretation · 4 Not checked yet

The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The trace anomaly forbids conformal matter alone to turn an anisotropic universe around, so matter with w < 1/3, most cheaply a positive potential, must supply the negative trace”
- Also stated in: § III. THE TRACE AT A TURNING POINT · boosted
  “We show that the trace anomaly forbids conformal matter alone to turn a contracting universe around when the universe is anisotropic.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Abstract
boosted
direct
- The authors state this as an assumption: The net coefficient b of the □R term in the trace anomaly vanishes (a choice of renormalization scheme).
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At every anisotropic zero of H, Ḣ ≤ -5S/54 in any state of a conformal field theory inside the conformal collider bounds, Eq. ( 7).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > III. THE TRACE AT A TURNING POINT
plain
direct
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that its coupling to the non-zero modes is a consistent one-loop Born-Oppenheimer split when the slow coordinate is the Coulomb-gauge Higgs zero mode and the non-zero modes are summed with the MS finite-volume prescription.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Zero-mode Hamiltonian and one-loop finite-volume matching
plain
correlational
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Through the running of the Standard Model couplings the threshold becomes the top-mass criterion of Eq. (35): P 1 > 1/2 for m t < 172.96GeV.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > V. THE HIGGS ZERO MODE AT THE TURNING POINT
plain
correlational
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the Standard Model at the turn has a/c = 1.17 (Appendix B 1).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Obstruction and rate bound
plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It describes two W modes of fre- quency g 2 r/2, a Z mode of frequency g Z r/2 with g Z = (g 2 2 +g 2 Y ) 1/2 , and a massless photon.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Zero-mode Hamiltonian and one-loop finite-volume matching
plain
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With T extra = -4ρ Λ and ρ Λ = 3 M 2 P h 2 , Eq. ( 6) becomes an exact criterion for every state of the conformal sector: S b < 12h 2 - Q 0 16π 2 M 2 P ,”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Obstruction and rate bound
plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The solution is null geodesically complete: along a null geodesic dλ = L dt/|p|, and L dt diverges at both ends.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. The turning point
plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Marginalizing over the measured masses, α s , and the theory and model errors of Table II gives a survival probability P1 = 0.73 for the direct top mass (0.50 to 0.86 across top-mass definitions), provided the Higgs curvature coupling satisfies ξ H (µ b ) ≳ 0.08.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > V. THE HIGGS ZERO MODE AT THE TURNING POINT
plain
correlational
- The authors state this as an assumption: m_t denotes the top-quark pole mass, obtained from the MS mass with the pole-MS relation truncated at four loops, and mt ≡ mt(mt) is the MS mass; the direct (Monte Carlo) mass, 172.60 ± 0.27 GeV, is identified with m_t up to an interpretation uncertainty of about 0.5 GeV.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At r = 0 the full Standard Model gives the holonomy curvatures κ 3 = Z P -2Z A π 2 , κ 2 = 5Z P -12Z A 6π 2 , κ Y = Z P -20Z A 6π 2 ,(29) where Z P = -8.913633and Z A = -2.519356are the periodic and antiperiodic Epstein constants.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
plain
direct

Show all 136 claims

It may state two separate claims as one. 281
Probably not a substantial claim. 88
The quote only partly states this claim. 1

The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Non-zero shear makes Ḣ < 0 at H = 0, and the general-H identity of Appendix A 2 excludes degenerate crossings.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Obstruction and rate bound
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“With a constant vacuum energy 3 M 2 P h 2 the negative Casimir energy turns a contracting torus around.The leading solution [20,21] is L = L b √ cosh 2ht, L 4 b = N eff C γ C 3 M 2 P h 2 ,(16) with H = h tanh 2ht.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. The turning point
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [20]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [21]
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The resonance tunnels in r through the barrier at r ≈ 3-5.5 while w stays in its local ground channel.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sectors with 't Hooft flux need a hypercharge flux of at least 2π, whose classical energy, 2π 2 /g 2 Y L = 100.7/L, is 2.36 times the whole AAA Casimir energy, so they cannot turn around.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Image sums, spin structures and holonomies
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The ground-state energy Q/L of the constant modes of the gauge and Higgs fields does not depend on the shape and is a fraction f 0 = 0.30 of the free Casimir energy at the cube,”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IV. STANDARD MODEL CASIMIR ENERGY, ZERO MODES AND THE TURNING POINT
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The content of Sec.II has B = 12 + 2 + 1 = 15 for the gauge vectors, the Higgs doublet and the static graviton, and F = 45 for the Weyl fermions, hence N PPP C = 15 -45 = -30, N AAA C = 15 + 45 × 0.233673 = +25.515.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Image sums, spin structures and holonomies
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Numerically κ 3 = -0.393,κ 2 = -0.242,and κ Y = +0.700(Appendix B 2), and κ 3 /2 reproduces the small-volume coefficient -0.19631 of Ref. [42].”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [42]
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The tadpole of the periodic bosons is negative (T B < 0), so the gauge non-zero modes partly undo the linear confinement of Eq. ( 21).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Zero-mode Hamiltonian and one-loop finite-volume matching
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The resulting one-loop energy is analytic in the field-dependent masses, tachyonic masses included, and its scale dependence cancels the running of the couplings.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Zero-mode Hamiltonian and one-loop finite-volume matching
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.
In the paper
“At an isotropic turning point of an isotropic history, where also u = 0, the anomaly terms of Eq. ( 6) vanish, as they do at the turning points of the anomaly-corrected Friedmann equation of an isotropic Casimir torus [60]; the strict rate bound (7) is a property of anisotropic turning points.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Obstruction and rate bound
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [60]
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The next order, O(g 4/3 ), adds the curvature of the one-loop holonomy potential and a one-loop mass of the Higgs zero mode; in first-order perturbation theory they lower f 0 by 0.014 and 0.003, and their shape dependence lowers the aspect stiffness κ E of Sec.VII by 4% (Appendix B 2).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > doublet, and p 2
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Varying µ over [ 1 2 , 2π]/L and the top-threshold scale over [ 1 2 , 2]/L in the final model moves the critical mass at P 1 = 1/2 by +0.012 and -0.049 GeV (Table II); the range extends beyond the scale µ * = 3.41/L at which the m 4 coefficient of Eq. ( 23) vanishes, which makes the item asymmetric.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Zero-mode Hamiltonian and one-loop finite-volume matching
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They follow the shape adiabatically, because the shape changes at a rate of order hL b σ E ≃ 5×10 -4 in conformal time, far below their gaps.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > doublet, and p 2
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together they would raise the critical top mass by +0.005 GeV at P 1 = 0.9 and by +0.008 GeV at P 1 = 1/2; the central values do not include this shift, which lies inside the one-sided fulldimensional item of Table II.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
hedged
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For r ≳ 1 the W and Z zero modes are nearly harmonic, and their zero-point energy grows linearly with the Higgs radius, E g (r) ≃ E (0) g + σ 0 r, σ 0 = 3 2 g 2 + 3 4 g Z ≃ 1.31,”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Zero-mode Hamiltonian and one-loop finite-volume matching
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For these structures the one-loop potential puts an SU (3) centre holonomy on each periodic edge, which raises N C at the cube to 21.07 (one antiperiodic edge) and 23.67 (two); the energy is then stationary at a tetragonal shape, where N C = 19.72 and 22.84 (Appendix B 1).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Image sums, spin structures and holonomies
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Other one-loop countings differ from Eq. ( 24) by terms proportional to V ′ tree ; the unitary counting is not a controlled Born-Oppenheimer separation (Ref.[63], Sec.6), and in a one-dimensional version of the model it would move the critical mass at P 1 = 1/2 by -0.11 GeV, against -0.016GeV for the Landau-gauge counting.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Zero-mode Hamiltonian and one-loop finite-volume matching
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [63]
hedged
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For λ < 0 full-dimensional DMC with a gauge-invariant wall confirms the resonance energy to 0.005/L, and four independent estimates give the same width to within 8%.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that it does, with a probability set by the top-quark mass.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > V. THE HIGGS ZERO MODE AT THE TURNING POINT
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“so an AAA Weyl fermion contributes +0.233673 to N C , while a periodic one contributes -1.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Image sums, spin structures and holonomies
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Higgs zero mode is the one constant mode whose fate this energy count does not settle: at µ b the Standard Model quartic is negative, so the Hamiltonian (14) has no normalizable ground state along the Higgs direction, and the zero mode becomes a narrow resonance (Sec.V).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > doublet, and p 2
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The gluon zero modes do not couple to Φ at tree level; they enter through the top-quark loop of Sec.V C.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Zero-mode Hamiltonian and one-loop finite-volume matching
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because φ is real and normalized the projection is exact, and the model Hamiltonian acting on u = r 3/2 f is”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“With periodic fermions and trivial holonomies the Casimir energy is positive, and a torus expands from a small size without turning around, which is the emptytorus scenario of Ref. [24].”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Image sums, spin structures and holonomies
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [24]
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Every non-zero-mode frequency is real in the field range of the resonance, where a 1/2 Z ≤ 1.72/L, and the radial non-zero modes become tachyonic only at r ≈ 31, far outside the barrier at r ≈ 4-5.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Zero-mode Hamiltonian and one-loop finite-volume matching
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At r > 0 the masses of Eq. ( 22) grow with r, and within the conditional Gaussian the cross terms add a radial potential and a hypercharge curvature Ω 2 X to the two-dimensional model, Eq. (C9).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The joint dynamics lowers the well and leaves the barrier unchanged, so that Γ 2D /Γ 1D = 0.39-0.48for λ between -0.008 and -0.0143; nearly all of B w was spurious.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Standard Model value lies on the safe side of this threshold, and P 1 = 0.84 at the central inputs.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > V. THE HIGGS ZERO MODE AT THE TURNING POINT
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The AAA assignment keeps the cube stationary, gives the largest weight and leaves the holonomies trivial; it is our benchmark (assumption A1),”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Image sums, spin structures and holonomies
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At marginal turning the least negative CFT energy is ζ = 3 4 + 5 36 y for vacuum energy and 3 2 + 5 9 y for dust.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Obstruction and rate bound
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At leading order Q does not depend on the shape, so the zero modes leave the shape Hessian unchanged, lower the signed weight to N eff C = (1 -f 0 )N C = 17.9 and raise every normalized shape stiffness κ A to κ A /(1 -f 0 ) (Table I).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > doublet, and p 2
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The covariant Landau-gauge counting agrees with this split to 0.016 GeV in the critical mass, whereas the gaugeinvariant (unitary) counting is not consistent.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Zero-mode Hamiltonian and one-loop finite-volume matching
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Anomalous corrections to the criterion (10) are of relative order ϵ 2 , and the turning point is slow compared with the photon gap, (hL b /4π) 2 ≃ 1.2 × 10 -7 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. The turning point
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The inflaton fluctuation is light at the turning point and adds 1 2 to N C , and three right-handed neutrinos lighter than 2π/L b would add 0.70;”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Image sums, spin structures and holonomies
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A blind calculation of the charged-component part, which carries all but +0.005 to +0.007 GeV of the shift, gives -0.081, -0.117, and -0.157 GeV, against -0.085, -0.124, and -0.167 GeV for the same part in our calculation; we keep the difference as an error (Table II).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For λ < 0 both b and m 2 δρ are negative.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Zero-mode Hamiltonian and one-loop finite-volume matching
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“With all three cycles of a cubic torus antiperiodic, its signed Casimir weight is N C = +25.515,whereas periodic fermions give -30.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IV. STANDARD MODEL CASIMIR ENERGY, ZERO MODES AND THE TURNING POINT
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A homogeneous Higgs field with λ < 0 has no ground state,”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > V. THE HIGGS ZERO MODE AT THE TURNING POINT
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At λ = 0 the ground-state energy of Eq. ( 27) without the matching term is 4.4509/L, against 4.4478(13)/L from full-dimensional DMC and 4.5985/L in the one-dimensional reduction.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“At leading order of the small-volume expansion the pure-gauge part of Q is ϵ 3 g 2/3 3 + ϵ 2 g 2/3 2 , with ϵ 2 = 4.1167 [40] and ϵ 3 = 12.587 [41,86], independent of the fermions at this order [42].”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > doublet, and p 2
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [40]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [41]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [86]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [42]
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Zero-point fluctuations of the gauge-field zero modes give the Higgs zero mode a potential that grows linearly with the field, and with the quartic runaway the electroweak configuration becomes a finite-volume resonance, whose width falls exponentially as λ → 0 -.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > V. THE HIGGS ZERO MODE AT THE TURNING POINT
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“so the Casimir state must violate that condition; it does, ρ+p = 4 3 ρ C < 0, and the averaged null energy along every null geodesic is (Appendix A 3) R kk dλ = - √ 2 Γ(1/4) 2 3 √ π h ω b = -3.4961 h ω b ,”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. The turning point
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Born-Huang term of the radial motion splits exactly into three parts, B r = B x + B w + B β , B w = 3 16 ẽ′ ẽ 2 r→0 ----→ 3 16r 2 ,(26) because ẽ = Ω ≃ g Y r/2 at small r.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A curvature coupling is negligible at the turn itself, where RL 2 b = 12(hL b ) 2 ≃ 2×10 -4 , but late in the expanding branch, τ ≳ 4, it decides whether the zero mode stays near the origin (Sec.V H).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > doublet, and p 2
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With g 3 ≃ 0.54, g 2 ≃ 0.53 and g Y ≃ 0.44 at µ b , this is 26% of the free Casimir coefficient C = N C γ C = 42.74, and it bounds Q from below for λ ≥ 0.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > doublet, and p 2
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Including all Standard Model fields, we find that these cross terms lower the critical top mass by 0.080, 0.118, and 0.160 GeV at P 1 = 0.9, 1/2, and 0.1, with a model-internal error of ±0.008, ±0.010, and ±0.013 GeV.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The zero-mode energy lowers L b by the factor (1 -f 0 ) 1/4 , or 8.5%, so the benchmark turning point has L b MP = 722, hL b = 0.0044,(18) and the matching scale of assumption A2 is µ b = 1/L b = MP /722 = 3.37 × 10 15 GeV.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. The turning point
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The Standard Model, with a non-minimal coupling ξ_H R Φ†Φ of the Higgs doublet to the Ricci scalar, holds up to the matching scale µ_b = 1/L_b = M_P/722 ≃ 3.4×10^15 GeV; its MS couplings at µ_b follow from NNLO matching at the top-quark mass and three-loop running, with M_h = 125.13 GeV and α_s(M_Z) = 0.1180.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These stiffen the w direction and make it more adiabatic: the two-dimensional width exceeds that of the adiabatic one-dimensional reduction by only 1.0-1.8% in the final model, against 6-8% without cross terms, so the reduction is, if anything, more accurate in the final model.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With λ < 0 a radial potential of the form σr -|λ|r 4 /4 has a well near the origin, a barrier, and a runaway, so the electroweak configuration is a resonance.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Zero-mode Hamiltonian and one-loop finite-volume matching
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The difference from the two-dimensional model with the same wall is ∆ε = -0.0032(8)at λ = -0.010and -0.0034(9) at λ = -0.013,independent of the wall position, and -0.0043(9) at λ = 0.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A diffusion Monte Carlo (DMC) computation of the coupled SU (2) × U (1)×Higgs ground state (Appendix B 2) gives Q = 12.8, so the zero modes use up a fraction f 0 ≡ Q/C = 0.30 (15) of the free Casimir energy, between the lower bound 0.26 and the Gaussian variational bound 0.31.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > doublet, and p 2
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Three other estimates of the width ratio agree: multidimensional adiabatic WKB gives 0.937 including B w under the barrier, the wall dependence of the tunneling tail gives 0.92(16) and 1.03(7), and a threedimensional model with an SU(2) breathing mode gives 0.999.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We fix h by the observed scalar amplitude and the pivot k * = 0.05 Mpc -1 by thermal matching.With instant reheating this gives N * = 55.722e-folds between pivot exit and the end of inflation and h/ MP = 6.116 × 10 -6 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. The turning point
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The torus is then 3.6 × 10 3 Planck lengths across, about 230 times smaller than the Hubble radius 1/h, and the small parameter of the semiclassical description is ϵ = √ N C h/ MP ≃ 3 × 10 -5 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. The turning point
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the field range of the resonance the one-loop energy of the non-zero modes lowers the local slope by 10-33% and roughly halves the barrier above the resonance level (Sec.V G).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Zero-mode Hamiltonian and one-loop finite-volume matching
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The eight spin structures of T 3 fall into two classes under SL(3, Z), the periodic one and the seven others.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Image sums, spin structures and holonomies
plain
correlational
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For free fields and a reference present torus side L 0 = 6/H 0 , 0.96 times the diameter d LSS of the last-scattering sphere, it gives ϕ b = 5.5794 MP and N post = 68.25 e-folds after the turning point.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. The turning point
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The term δE DMC is the difference between the exact fixed-r energy of the SU(2) zero modes, computed by rotating-frame DMC, and its Gaussian value; without it the model gives a strict variational upper bound.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Coulomb gauge each massive vector has two transverse modes with ω 2 = k 2 + a and one Coulomb mode that mixes with the Goldstone boson π, with frequency ω 2 C = (k 2 + b)(k 2 + a)/k 2 [Eq.(C3)]; on shell (b = 0) it coincides with the transverse one.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Zero-mode Hamiltonian and one-loop finite-volume matching
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.
In the paper
“Inhomogeneous decay is much slower: the scale-invariant instanton has action 8π 2 /(3|λ|) ≈ 2.6 × 10 3 at |λ| = 0.01 [4], against zero-mode tunneling exponents of 2-6.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [4]
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the plateau the turning point sits at ϕ b with H = φ = 0, and the history is time symmetric.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. The turning point
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At trivial holonomy one or two antiperiodic edges give N C = 13.1 and 20.9, and the cube is not stationary.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Image sums, spin structures and holonomies
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Higgs zero mode is confined mainly by the zero-point fluctuations of the gauge zero modes: together with hypercharge it raises the SU (2) energy by about four times what a decoupled quartic oscillator would contribute at the same λ.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > doublet, and p 2
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The expansion parameter g 2/3 ≃ 0.66 is not small, but the published SU (2) series converges quickly at this coupling, with corrections of -11%, -0.4% and -0.15% of the leading term at g = 0.53.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > doublet, and p 2
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trivial holonomy is not the one-loop vacuum of this sector, however: a hypercharge holonomy raises N C to 17.79 (Appendix B 1), so at its vacuum the periodic sector also has a negative Casimir energy;”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Image sums, spin structures and holonomies
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with periodic fermions some holonomies make the energy negative, but for AAA the trivial holonomy maximizes N C along the hypercharge direction and centre holonomies lower it, so the benchmark is stable against these deformations (Appendix B 1).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Image sums, spin structures and holonomies
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“for a top-quark pole mass m t = 172.60GeV (the direct measurement; assumption A7), α s (M Z ) = 0.1180 and M h = 125.13GeV, we find λ(µ b ) = -0.0098.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > V. THE HIGGS ZERO MODE AT THE TURNING POINT
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The Standard Model, with a non-minimal coupling ξ_H R Φ†Φ of the Higgs doublet to the Ricci scalar, holds up to the matching scale µ_b = 1/L_b = M_P/722 ≃ 3.4×10^15 GeV; its MS couplings at µ_b follow from NNLO matching at the top-quark mass and three-loop running, with M_h = 125.13 GeV and α_s(M_Z) = 0.1180.
- The authors state this as an assumption: m_t denotes the top-quark pole mass, obtained from the MS mass with the pole-MS relation truncated at four loops, and mt ≡ mt(mt) is the MS mass; the direct (Monte Carlo) mass, 172.60 ± 0.27 GeV, is identified with m_t up to an interpretation uncertainty of about 0.5 GeV.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which equals the one-loop Feynman-gauge value and is +2.1 × 10 -4 with the couplings at µ b of Appendix D 3; numerically the identity holds to 10 -14 (Appendix C 2).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Zero-mode Hamiltonian and one-loop finite-volume matching
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The independent library mr [114], run blind, gives a quartic at µ b lower by 2.8 × 10 -4 , equivalent to 0.043 GeV in m t and within the scheme error below.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. Standard Model mapping and the critical top-quark mass
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [114]
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Near the critical masses d ln I/dm t = 5.27, 3.22, and 2.12 GeV -1 at P 1 = 0.9, 0.5, and 0.1.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The central Standard Model quartic exceeds λ c by 0.0024, equivalent to 0.36 GeV in m t .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. Standard Model mapping and the critical top-quark mass
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The new ingredient is the threshold: it places the criterion m c -m 0 = 1.9 GeV above the line λ(µ b ) = 0 at m 0 = 171.09GeV, which with our inputs lies just above the absolutestability bound [2,3], and far below the metastability bound, 177.7 GeV [4] [Fig.3(b)].”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. Standard Model mapping and the critical top-quark mass
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [2]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [3]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [4]
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It gives w 0 = 0.995, 0.991, 0.985-0.990,and 0.980-0.988at m t = 172.2,172.6, 173.0, and 173.4 GeV.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The AAA Standard Model obeys Eq. ( 50) to 10 -8 , with aspect deformations lowering and angle deformations raising its energy.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. No shape minimum for negative Casimir energy
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The added zero-point energy 3 2 [(Ω 2 eff + Ω 2 X ) 1/2 -Ω eff ] is therefore larger in the well, 0.24-0.32/Lat r ≈ 1-1.5, than at the barrier, 0.13-0.17/Lat r ≈ 3-5, so it lifts ε toward the barrier top and increases Γ.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is close to the sum of their fixed-coupling values, -0.09GeV, and the blind calculation reproduces each part of the fixedcoupling estimate to within 0.022 GeV.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The unique time-symmetric bilinear value that reduces to the joint spectral measure for commuting projectors is P lin 2 = Re⟨ψ 0 |E + E -|ψ 0 ⟩, which equals P 2 1 /w 0 in the resonance limit up to a phase factor that equals one to 10 -4 in our calculations.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The levels P 1 = 0.9 and 0.1 give m t = 172.50 and 173.42 GeV ( mt = 162.73 and 163.60 GeV; Table II).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. Standard Model mapping and the critical top-quark mass
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We show that the hazard gives the survival probability of the resonant component of a timesymmetric real state, exactly in the adiabatic limit and to 0.2% in a real-time evolution of the final model”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
boosted
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Two further effects leave these numbers unchanged at the quoted precision: for periodic Maxwell fields the causal response of the field to the moving shape gives a finitevolume shape inertia, which changes the gain at relative order 0.11 ϵ, with ϵ ≃ 3 × 10 -5 the small parameter of Sec.IV C. Pair creation by the shape motion is suppressed by ϵ 3 , because the torus gap makes the motion adiabatic (”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Shape modes at the turning point
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [63]
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A Higgs-only estimate gives Ω 2 X < 0 and an apparent instability of the soft w direction at r < 0.78; with all fields this instability is absent.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without that item the model error is +0.03 -0.05 GeV, comparable to the Standard Model theory error.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > F. Error budget, marginalized survival probability, and experimental reach
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If one adopts it with w 0 = 1, m c (P 2 = p) = m c (P 1 = √ p), and the critical masses move down by 0.122 GeV for p = 0.9 and 0.195 GeV for p = 1/2; we quote single-branch probabilities.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With kinetic term 1 2 M 2 P L 3 β2 A , on the turningpoint solution (16) they obey βA + 3H βA -κ A h 2 sech 2 (2ht) β A = 0, κ A = 3λ A Z eff ,(52) where λ A are the Hessian eigenvalues of Z eff = -π 2 LE C , so that Eq. ( 50) gives A κ A = 8/(1 -f 0 ).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Shape modes at the turning point
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Top-mass definitions enter at the level of 0.5 GeV [69,116].”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. Standard Model mapping and the critical top-quark mass
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [69]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [116]
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The resonant projection decays at the hazard rate to 1.3 × 10 -4 for τ ≤ 5, and δ comes only from the definition of the in-well probability.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A pair of hypercharge photons with opposite momenta along one edge, which costs 4π/L, 42% of the budget, freezes a cubic torus into a box with sides in the ratio 4.96 at f 0 = 0.30 (3.0-11.9 at 90% from the natural shape state) when the axis of the pair is definite.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. A prepared beginning
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The hazard and the single-branch survival probability are I(m t ) = 5 0 Γ(m t , τ ) dτ hL b (cosh 2τ ) 1/2 , P 1 = e -I .(31)”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The transverse vev-mixing logarithm is exactly 4/3 of the value required by the renormalization group, and the Coulomb mismatch supplies -1/3.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Representative values are P 1 = 0.985 at 172.2 GeV, 0.891 at 172.52 GeV, 0.843 at 172.60 GeV, and 0.455 at 173.0 GeV [Fig.3(a)].”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. Standard Model mapping and the critical top-quark mass
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Standard Model theory error of the mt form, ±0.07 GeV, is dominated by the matching scale, +0.054/ -0.042 GeV for µ 0 ∈ [m t /2, 2m t ], and by the scheme difference between SMDR and mr, 0.042 GeV; the pole form adds 0.075 GeV for the uncomputed O(α 5 s ) term of Eq. (36).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. Standard Model mapping and the critical top-quark mass
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With ξ H = 1/6 the curvature term of the zero-mode equation vanishes and the hazard to τ = 5 gives the survival probability; for ξ H < 1/6 the late turn matters, and in the conformal frame the zero mode obeys”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gaussians cut off at the origin give smaller w 0 , but they are not in the domain of H 0 because ⟨3/8r 2 ⟩ diverges.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We map the threshold to the top-quark mass with the three-loop running and NNLO matching of assumption A2, computed with our own code (Appendix D 3); with the masses of assumption A7 the result is 96 GeV mt < 163.16 GeV , (35) for α s (M Z ) = 0.1180”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. Standard Model mapping and the critical top-quark mass
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The all-orders pole mass lies 0.27 GeV above our four-loop truncation [119], and the renormalon ambiguity is 0.07-0.11GeV; the mt form of Eq. ( 35) is free of both.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. Standard Model mapping and the critical top-quark mass
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [119]
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The parametric error from α s , ±0. 35 GeV, exceeds the theory and model errors combined; of all the items in Table II only the Monte Carlo-pole interpretation of the measured mass, ±0.5 GeV, is larger.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > F. Error budget, marginalized survival probability, and experimental reach
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Near the threshold λ(µ b ) is nearly linear in m t , λ(µ b ; m t ) ≃ dλ(µ b ) dm t (m t -m 0 ), dλ(µ b ) dm t ≈ -0.0066 GeV -1 ,(37) where m 0 = 171.09GeV is the mass at which λ(µ b ) = 0.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. Standard Model mapping and the critical top-quark mass
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A lens transformation, Eq. (D1), maps the problem exactly to the physical field y = ϕ/h: the conformal term becomes a curvature mass squared 12ξ H h 2 , and the growing effective mass M = (hL) 3 makes the late dynamics classical.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first-order energies of the zero modes, the matching energy E m to the non-zero modes and the induced Higgs-mass energy E H , are s = 1 Epstein sums with eigenvalue -4 3 ; they preserve the conclusion as long as Q ≥ - 3 2 L(E m + E H ), which with the estimates of Appendix B 2 is 1.1, about twelve times less than the zero-mode energy Q.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. No shape minimum for negative Casimir energy
plain
conditional
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The negative energy that turns the volume around also acts on the shape of the torus, and we show that it cannot hold one.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > VII. SHAPE INSTABILITY AND THE QUANTUM FOSSIL
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together with the exact top-quark chiral loop, the logarithms of all one-loop r 2 c 2 terms reproduce the running of the tree-level gauge-Higgs coupling with the anomalous dimension of Eq. ( 25), to 97-99% at r = 2-5.Hence µ = 1/L is a consistent matching scale for the cross terms as well.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This curvature is dominated by the 45 Weyl fermions, whose antiperiodic boundary conditions pin the hypercharge holonomy at its trivial value [42]; it equals +0.137 for r ≤ 1.5 and +0.118 at r = 5, and it stays positive for all r ≤ 8, because the fermions outweigh the Higgs doublet by -20Z A /|Z P | = 5.65.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [42]
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Excited zero modes keep the cube stationary but raise the fossil width σ E of Sec.VII E by 8-9% each.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. A prepared beginning
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Table II the model error at P 1 = 1/2 is +0.07 -0.08 GeV, dominated by the inflation scale, which enters through the duration of the turn.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > F. Error budget, marginalized survival probability, and experimental reach
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“By time-reflection symmetry P 1 is the same for both, but their joint survival is not a probability in the decoherent-histories sense [97,98]: the Heisenberg projectors E ± onto the well at ±T do not commute on ψ 0 , and the two-time history set has maximal interference (Appendix D 2).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [97]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [98]
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if the four components of the Higgs doublet were excited like minimally coupled scalars, the crossing would move closer to the turn by only ln(7/3)/4 ≃ 0.2 e-fold, and the choice of state for modes outside the Hubble radius changes it by at most 0.001.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. An exact budget
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The tadpole-including organization of Ref. [3] gives a wider scale variation, +0.17/ -0.36 GeV in m c , which comes from same-sign two-loop logarithms of λ and y t in the G F scheme rather than from tadpoles, and we keep it as a robustness variant (Sec.V F).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. Standard Model mapping and the critical top-quark mass
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [3]
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Besides the direct mass of assumption A7, the cross-section pole mass, 172.1 ± 0.6 GeV [68], gives P 1 = 0.99, and the ATLAS+CMS combination, 172.52 ± 0.33 GeV [117], gives 0.89.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. Standard Model mapping and the critical top-quark mass
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [68]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [117]
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the final model, removing groups of terms in either order gives -0.039 to -0.040 GeV for the SU(3)-top part and -0.078 to -0.079 GeV for the hypercharge and SU(2) parts together; with either of these removed alone the root search did not converge, so we quote them together (Ref.[63], Sec. 8).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [63]
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a first variational estimate at fixed couplings these contributions, taken one at a time, are about -0.20, -0.04, and +0.11GeV at P 1 = 1/2, and their sum agrees with the joint result of that estimate to 0.004 GeV.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
hedged
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The criterion barely depends on the preparation: since survival is w 0 P 1 for a real initial state [Eq.(32)], even w 0 = 0.9 or 0.8 would lower the critical mass for probability 1/2 by only 0.050 or 0.114 GeV.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We switch at τ sw = 6 to Wigner-sampled classical evolution with Hubble friction; any switch with τ sw ≥ 5.5 (M ≥ 0.43) gives the same survival probability to 2 × 10 -4 when λ is frozen at µ = 1/L and to 3 × 10 -3 when λ runs with the field, which moves ξ c by at most 0.0005 (Appendix D 2).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By SO(4)×SO(3) symmetry the Gaussian family is unique, exp(-r 2 /2σ 2 r -|w| 2 /2σ 2 s ) with r = |ϕ|, and the rule selects σ r ≈ 1.33-1.36and σ s ≈ 1.36.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With three non-conformal degrees of freedom the excitation exhausts the budget at T = 6.91 for the Standard Model with f 0 = 0.30 and hL b = 0.0044, and at 6.96 for free fields; beyond that it grows roughly as e 4T .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. An exact budget
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the Standard-Model theory error is ±0.10 GeV for m t and ±0.07 GeV for mt , and α s ±0.0009 moves the bound by ±0.35 GeV (±0.25 GeV for mt ).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. Standard Model mapping and the critical top-quark mass
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For every image term of the Casimir energy, completeness of the basis X A gives (Appendix E 1) tr sh Hess (n T Gn) -s = 4s 3 (2s -3)(n T Gn) -s ,(49) so that for any mixture of twisted massless free fields tr sh Hess E C = 8 3 E C .(50)”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. No shape minimum for negative Casimir energy
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the AAA Standard Model with the stiffnesses of Table I the aspect gain is 216.5 for free fields and 674 with the zero-mode energy, which the next-order terms of the zero-mode energy lower to 529 with κ E = 18.0.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Shape modes at the turning point
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More information moves the readout edge only slightly: from ℓ ≤ 30 to ℓ ≤ 80 the divergence of the typical fossil grows by a factor of about 2.2, but the peak probability and the integrated measure grow only by factors 1.23-1.31.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For the Standard Model, G = 2.395, 8.263, 45.10 and 313.8 at h|t x | = 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 and 1, and 2G(κ E ) = 1348 as |t x | → ∞ (Ref.[63], Sec.15).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. When the shape state is real
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [63]
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With f 0 = 0.30 the rms of ln(L i /L j ) is √ 2 σ E = 0.147, and the median of ln(L max /L min ) is 1.588 σ E , so the longest and shortest sides typically differ by 18% at leading order and by 16% with the next-order corrections; each edge angle deviates from 90 • by √ 2 σ T2 = 0.53 • rms.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. The quantum fossil
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the natural state with f 0 = 0.30 two sets of 2048 draws all survive; larger states fail in one way, the volume turns and then one cycle is squeezed to zero within 0.3-4 Hubble times.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > F. Nonlinear evolution and the Euclidean continuation
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A state that is never real has max ± Var β ± ≥ 2G(κ E ) δ|T 12 | and Var β E (0) ≥ 2m 12 m 22 δ.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. When the shape state is real
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“White noise and beams of the Planck 143 GHz type lower the peak to 0.313, and masks, foregrounds and the uncertainty of the reionization optical depth, not included here, lower it further.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The turning point leaves no feature in the primordial spectra, whose tilt and tensor-to-scalar ratio are those of the plateau potential at the number of e-folds fixed by reheating.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > VIII. PRIMORDIAL SPECTRA AND THE MICROWAVE-BACKGROUND WINDOW
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“On a curved cigar the negative aspect kernel keeps its sign (Ref.[63], Sec.21), but whether a self-consistent capped saddle exists, and where it would center the shape, remains open.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > F. Nonlinear evolution and the Euclidean continuation
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [63]
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the shape state is real at some instant t x , then that instant is unique, and in the two-branch reading, in which both branches are physical futures of the same state, survival of the shape on both branches (equivalently, on the branch that crosses the turn) with probability of at least 90% (99%) requires, for a Gaussian state, h|t x | ≲ 0.35 (0.24), on either side of the turning point.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. When the shape state is real
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The scale of inflation enters both tests of the turning point only weakly: at fixed A s the width of the shape fossil grows as r 1/8 T , Eq. ( 61), so measuring r T ≃ 0.004 to ±10 -3 fixes σ E to 3.1%.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Primordial spectra
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The tensor ratio is an order of magnitude below the BI-CEP/Keck bound r T < 0.036 [155] and three to four times the LiteBIRD target δr T = 10 -3 [156].”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Primordial spectra
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [155]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [156]
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Casimir sector is a negative radiationlike term with |ρ C |/ρ γ ≲ 6 × 10 -119 (high-energy weight; about 13 times less with only the photon and graviton massless) today for L 0 ≃ d LSS , so its contribution to ∆N eff is negligible.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Primordial spectra
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Over the 15 computed shapes the readout edge u max , the shortest cycle at which D = 4.5, lies between 1.021 and 1.039 d LSS ; near the edge ln D falls by 85-130 per unit of u/d LSS , so doubling the information moves the edge outward by only about 0.008 d LSS .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Scaling the natural state by a factor s, an independent implementation with 2048 draws each gives survival 1.000, 0.987, 0.818, 0.365, 0.067 and 0.0015 for s = 1, 3, 5, 10, 20 and 40, in agreement with our main calculation [Fig.6(a)]; 99% of the trajectories survive up to s 99 ≃ 2.8-2.95, or below an outgoing linear amplitude σ lin ≃ 0.29-0.31per aspect mode.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > F. Nonlinear evolution and the Euclidean continuation
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A classical mean offset grows by m 11 = 10.6 through the turn, so it must stay below about 0.01, or 1.4 quantum widths, for the quantum fossil to dominate.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > F. Nonlinear evolution and the Euclidean continuation
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For an amplitude independent of ϕ b , the natural measures on the turning surface and the expanding branch all give p(N post ) ≃ 1.17/N post for 38 ≤ N post ≤ 125, which cannot be normalized on the plateau.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Averaging over shapes spreads the readable sizes without adding to them: for each shape the readable range of ln L 0 has the width ln(u max /0.985 d LSS ), so that P joint d ln L 0 = ln u max 0.985 d LSS = 0.042,(63) almost exactly the width, 0.0415, of the window of a single typical fossil,”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For κ > 1/4 both oscillate logperiodically with the same amplitude, and the on-shell action, a boundary term, oscillates without a limit, so no regularity condition selects a state (Ref.[63], Sec.15); since some κ A ≥ 8/5, every Casimir turning point has such a mode.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > F. Nonlinear evolution and the Euclidean continuation
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [63]
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Near the circle bound, u ≃ 0.99 d LSS , it is D ≃ 90-270 for every computed amplitude from A = 0.25 to 2; it falls to about 4.5 at u ≃ 1.027 d LSS , to 1 at 1.05 and to 0.1 at 1.10 d LSS .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With 2048 draws per point, S 2 = 0.9990, 0.9868, 0.9604 and 0.9087 at h|t x | = 0.20, 0.25, 0.30 and 0.35; it falls to 0.609 at 0.5 and 0.152 at 1 [Fig.6(b)].”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. When the shape state is real
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Solving the exact mode equations of the plateau with second-order adiabatic initial states, we find n s = 0.96534 and r T = 0.00346 for instant reheating, N * = 55.72, and n s = 0.96174 and r T = 0.00420 for the weak visible decay through the reheating coupling of Sec.VI B, N * = 50.33.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Primordial spectra
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model fixes the width of the distribution of present sizes but not its center.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A quantum state at the turn has amplitudes ∼ 10 -2 and fixed correlations.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Shape modes at the turning point
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All modes of the torus are inside the Hubble radius at the turn by at least a factor 2π/(hL b ) ≃ 1400 (1300 for free fields), and the emptiness gate of Sec.VI puts them in their adiabatic vacuum there; that vacuum evolves into the Bunch-Davies state of the subsequent plateau, with Bogoliubov coefficients suppressed by powers of hL b /2π|n|.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Primordial spectra
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The numerical error of σ E is below 0.1%, classical nonlinear evolution raises the aspect variance by factors 1.032-1.045(Sec.VII F), the inflaton fluctuation lowers σ E by 3.5%, the weak-decay calibration of h raises it by 2.5%, and a shift of 0.02 in f 0 moves it by 5%.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. The quantum fossil
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The shape modes freeze from h|t| = 1 2 arsinh |κ A |, which is 1.093 for the aspect modes, and on the plateau the anisotropic stiffness of every sector of our matter content is suppressed by the slow-roll parameter, so the modes have no oscillating asymptotic vacuum in the far past (Appendix E 2).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. When the shape state is real
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A single sky is one draw from the predicted distribution: the Fisher information on ln σ E from the two aspect amplitudes of one torus is 4, so even a perfect measurement tests the predicted width only to about 50%, enough to separate the floor from a shape state that becomes real later than about 0.25/h after the turn.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For temperature and E modes to ℓ = 80, P joint peaks at 0.344 near L 0 = 1.075 d LSS , with bounds 0.339-0.351from the interpolation of the readout edges, and it exceeds 0.1 for 1.018 < L 0 /d LSS < 1.183; given that circles are absent, the fossil is readable with probability above one half up to L 0 = 1.090 d LSS .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the Standard Model with f 0 = 0.30, κ E = 19.32 and T 12 = 52.1,so σ floor = 0.1037; at next order, κ E = 18.0 and f 0 ≃ 0.28, the floor is 0.0934.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. A floor from the uncertainty principle
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A Gaussian prior centered near the window with the width σ N ≃ 0.96 of the time-symmetric minimal-variance state of the inflaton zero mode gives P cond ≈ 3.3%; the width 1.9 of a constraint-projected inflaton packet that neglects the slope of the plateau, from an independent calculation (Ref.[63], Sec.21), gives P cond ≈ 1.7%, and a prior ∝ L -α 0 reaches P cond = 1/2 only for α ≃ 17.6.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [63]
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the single-branch reading the statement constrains only t x < 0: real states with 0 < ht x ≤ 1.1 all survive, with a fossil below the floor.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. When the shape state is real
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once the Casimir force has switched off, nothing changes the shape: the shape velocity decays as L -3 , and no homogeneous force acts on the moduli during inflation, reheating or the later expansion.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“For instant reheating the tilt lies 0.8σ below the CMB-only value n s = 0.9679 ± 0.0033 of SPT-3G, ACT and Planck combined (CMB-SPA, Table I of Ref. [152]), and for the weak decay 1.9σ below it; adding DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations [153] to the same combination gives n s = 0.9726 ± 0.0028 (Table VI of Ref. [152]), and the offsets grow to 2.6σ and 3.9σ; ACT and Planck with CMB lensing and D”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Primordial spectra
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [152]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [153]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [154]
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The aspect fossil obeys σ 2 E = δ|T 12 (κ E )|, so fewer light fields and a stronger instability give a larger fossil; for plateau inflation H eff / MP ∝ (A s r T ) 1/2 , so that σ E ∝ (A s r T ) 1/8 (N eff C ) -3/8 T 12 (κ E ) 1/2 . (61 )”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. The quantum fossil
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“For scalars the variable z = a φ/H of the Mukhanov-Sasaki equation is 0/0 at H = φ = 0, but the Newton-gauge variables continue regularly through the turning point [151], and states prepared about one e-fold before the turn reproduce the slow-roll normalization, differing from states prepared after the Casimir energy has diluted by 8 × 10 -4 at k/(a b h) = 727 (Ref.[63], Sec.16).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Primordial spectra
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [151]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [63]
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Departing from the optimal width by a factor of two lowers the survival by a further 3-7 percentage points, mixed real states have larger outgoing variances by the linear bound, and non-Gaussian real states, whose Wigner function can be negative, are not represented by the trajectory ensemble.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. When the shape state is real
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Theorem 1 (Real moment) For the linearized dynamics of Eq. (52), for an aspect mode (κ E > 0) in any state, pure or mixed, Gaussian or not, C(t) increases strictly with t.The shape state is therefore real at most at one instant t x , and every state is real once [C(-∞) < 0 < C(+∞)], never real and outgoing [C ≥ 0 throughout], or never real and incoming [C ≤ 0 throughout].”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. When the shape state is real
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Over the predicted shapes the readability probability peaks at 0.34, and the model does not select the present size.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > VIII. PRIMORDIAL SPECTRA AND THE MICROWAVE-BACKGROUND WINDOW
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The constraint at the turn, V (ϕ b )L 4 b = N eff C γ C , leaves a one-parameter family of time-symmetric turning points labeled by the inflaton value ϕ b : as ϕ b runs from 4.9 to 6.3 MP , the number of e-folds after the turn grows from 38 to 125 while L b changes by 0.6%, and nothing in the model selects ϕ b .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the spin structures PPA and PAA, which also turn the universe around and keep the Higgs zero mode, an indicative scaling gives a threshold of the same size”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
hedged
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since H s is real in the β representation and even in t, Ψ is real if and only if χ(β, 0) is real up to a phase (Appendix E 2); a real Ψ is a standing wave with equal weight on the two branches, which is the two-branch reading, and with CP violation real reads as invariant under the antiunitary Θ = CP T .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. When the shape state is real
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“adopting the time-symmetric linear value for both branches would lower m c at P 1 = 1/2 by 0.195 GeV.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
hedged
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Classical nonlinear shape dynamics leave the fossil of a state real at the turn intact, but they end the shape when the outgoing deformation is large.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > F. Nonlinear evolution and the Euclidean continuation
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The natural local width of the inverted oscillator at the turn, s nat = 1/(2m sh |ω|) with m sh = M 2 P L 3 b , is the width whose spreading matches the instability, and for the Standard Model aspect modes this natural state lies 0.05% above the floor in variance (Ref.[63], Sec.15).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. A floor from the uncertainty principle
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [63]
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that the divergence is a steep function of u and depends on the amplitude and orientation of the fossil almost only through it [Fig.7(a)].”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the next-order fossil, σ E = 0.094, the peak rises to 0.377, while the integrated measure does not change.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The levels 99% and 90% are crossed at h|t * | = 0.237 (95% interval 0.225-0.252)and 0.355 ± 0.003; an independent implementation given the method sections of the derivations, but not their results, gives 0.243±0.009and 0.360±0.004,and at next order the 99% level moves to 0.265.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. When the shape state is real
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the far past of the plateau slow roll limits ω 2 /H 2 to O(ϵ V ) ≪ 9/4, so the modes have no oscillating vacuum there.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 4. Full-dimensional check and independent reimplementations
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The coupled electroweak sector has LE EW = 4.4478(13) at λ = 0 and 4.4750(17) at λ = 0.01, so Q = 12.790 and 12.818, and f 0 = 0.2993 and 0.2999”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Bounds and diffusion Monte Carlo.
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The preparation weight depends on the Gaussian widths, since scaling σ r by 0.85 or 1.15 gives 0.928 or 0.972; it is the rule, not the Gaussian form alone, that fixes w 0 ≈ 0.99, and a blind reimplementation in the one-dimensional reduction gives w 0 = 0.991-0.996.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 2. Survival measure, preparation weight, late turn
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the two branches, with ξ H = 1/6 the zeromode Hamiltonian is real and even in η, so for a real ψ 0 the single-branch probabilities P 1 = ⟨ψ 0 |E + |ψ 0 ⟩ = ⟨ψ 0 |E -|ψ 0 ⟩ are equal.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 2. Survival measure, preparation weight, late turn
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the bound uses only second moments and holds for mixed and non-Gaussian states.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the cube this gives Z 2 (1, 0) = 16.5323159598 and Z 2 (1, ( 1 2 , 1 2 , 1 2 )) = -3.8631638072”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 1. Twisted image sums
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a shape-independent zero-mode energy raises every κ A to κ A /(1-f 0 ) and the guaranteed gain to 6.72 at f 0 = 0.30.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the Bayes factor B ex ≈ 0.033, odds of about 30 to 1 against this beginning.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With f 0 = 0.2999 the leading-order stiffnesses are κ E = 19.324and κ T2 = -9.074,with A κ A = 8/(1-f 0 ) = 11.43”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Bounds and diffusion Monte Carlo.
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For a torus with lattice basis B = L 0 G 1/2 the allowed wave vectors are k n = 2πB -T n, and the harmonic coefficients a X ℓm , X ∈ {T, E}, have the covariance [56]”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [56]
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“so the walled ground state is unique, positive, and gauge invariant.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 4. Full-dimensional check and independent reimplementations
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Standard Model has anomaly coefficients c = 283/120 and a = 995.5/360,so a/c = 1.17, inside the collider bound 31/18 of Sec.III.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 1. Twisted image sums
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this gives Eq. ( 23), with the tadpole T B /2 = Z P /(8π 2 ) = -0.1128925.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Coulomb mode
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two versions of the model and the 11 of the 16 variants of the Standard Model inputs and α s whose P 1 lies in the tested range 0.45 ≲ P 1 ≲ 0.998 lie on one curve ξ c (P 1 ) to within 0.002, and the final model lies on it to within 0.0003.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“it rises monotonically and stays bounded”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 4. Cross terms
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the joint probability is affected only below L 0 ≃ 1.03 d LSS , where it is at most 0.2.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with 10 4 walkers and time steps down to 0.005, it reproduces the certified ground energy 2.1407 of the four-dimensional quartic oscillator as 2.1402(5), ϵ 2 = 4.116720 as 4.1171(14) and ϵ 3 = 12.5868 as 12.5869 (22).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Bounds and diffusion Monte Carlo.
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For ξ H = 0 the zero mode runs away: at m t = 172.6GeV only 0.10-0.15 of the probability has not yet run away after 60 e-folds, almost all of it on undecided trajectories, and P surv → 0 as the number of e-folds grows.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Its frequency is not a relativistic dispersion”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A linear mode maps incoming to outgoing data by a symplectic matrix T , so [β -, β + ] = 2iδT 12 , and Robertson's inequality gives Var β -Var β + ≥ δ 2 T 2 12 in every state.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“and the all-mode bound ξ inf from plateau inflation (dashed) bound ξH from below, and ξH ≲ 1 [13] bounds it from above (hatched).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [13]
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With periodic fermions the centre holonomies k = (1, 1, 1) and (1, 0, 0) give N C = 11.19 and 0.56, and the hypercharge holonomy g = g(1, 1, 1) gives at most 17.79”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 1. Twisted image sums
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the Standard Model the curvatures are -0.393 for SU (3), -0.242 for SU (2) and +0.700 for hypercharge”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Bounds and diffusion Monte Carlo.
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Along the solution ω A /|H| = |κ A |/| sinh 2t|, so the modes freeze from |t| = 1 2 arsinh |κ A |.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There the diagonal element P 3 1 of the decoherence functional for w 0 = 1 falls below the Fréchet bound 2P 1 -1 when P 1 > ( √ 5 -1)/2 = 0.618, so it cannot be a probability.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 2. Survival measure, preparation weight, late turn
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Near the circle bound the quadratic Fisher estimate misjudges deformations of fossil size by factors between 0.2 and 3, which is why we use the exact divergence.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sectors with 't Hooft flux the Standard Model fields are single valued only if a nontrivial SU (3) or SU (2) twist comes with a hypercharge flux of at least 2π, whose classical energy exceeds the Casimir energy unless N C > 60”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 1. Twisted image sums
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The blind checks led to three corrections that are included here: the equal-mass convention for asymmetric errors, which keeps the central value at the median, the support of the flat prior, and the HL-LHC precision.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 4. Full-dimensional check and independent reimplementations
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the one-loop Higgs mass of Sec.V A lowers f 0 by a further 0.003, so the first-order terms give f 0 ≃ 0.28.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Bounds and diffusion Monte Carlo.
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the barrier region, r ≈ 3-5.5, B w < 0.006 is smaller than B x and B β , and w follows its local ground channel.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 3. Reduced two-dimensional model
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The central couplings at µ b are λ = -0.0097741,y t = 0.4278267, g 2 = 0.527759, g Y = 0.442770, and g 3 = 0.535654.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 3. Standard Model mapping
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For a diagonal G, which includes every shape of Eq. ( 62), each coordinate reflection maps the lattice to itself, so the covariance splits exactly into eight blocks labeled by the reflection characters of the real harmonics, and the divergence is the sum of the block divergences.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As t ref → -∞, M 11 M 12 → T 11 T 12 , which gives the bound 2G δ|T 12 | for an outgoing never-real state, and the same bound on Var β -for an incoming one.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A joint distribution with marginals E -and E + for all states exists only if [E + , E -] = 0, whereas ∥[E + , E -]ψ 0 ∥ 2 ≃ 2P 3 1 (1 -P 1 ) in the resonance limit.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 2. Survival measure, preparation weight, late turn
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“for AAA the centre holonomies give 9.86 and 22.74, and N C along the hypercharge direction is maximal, 25.515, at g = 0.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 1. Twisted image sums
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The energy is then stationary at a tetragonal shape, with the antiperiodic edge 28% longer than the periodic ones for PPA and the periodic edge 17% shorter than the antiperiodic ones for PAA; there N C = 19.72 and 22.84, and both aspect directions are unstable”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 1. Twisted image sums
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the Standard Model with f 0 = 0.30, X = 2282.5 and δ = 2.065 × 10 -4 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Through the refinements of the model the critical mass at P 1 = 1/2 rose from 172.584 GeV for the unitary counting without V CW to 173.002 GeV for the two-dimensional model with the DMC shape, in five steps of 0.04 to 0.11 GeV that add distinct physical effects rather than successive orders of one expansion.Two numerical refinements of that model changed it by only 0.011 and 0.001 GeV, the NNLO m”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 1. Resonances and the hazard
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“pure Gaussian with equal endpoint variances δ|T 12 | and zero symmetrized endpoint covariance has Var β(t) = δ|T 12 |(u 2 + v 2 ) ≤ δ|T 12 | at all times.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For AAA the normalized stiffnesses κ A = 3λ A /Z eff of Sec.VII are κ E = 13.5286 and κ T2 = -6.3524for free fields (f 0 = 0; with the zero-mode energy κ A /(1 -f 0 ), Table I), with A κ A = 8.0000”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 1. Twisted image sums
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with Gaussian spreads of the zero modes the first-order shift is ∆Q = -0.60,or ∆f 0 = -0.014”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Bounds and diffusion Monte Carlo.
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a turning point without a plateau, whose state is fixed by an incoming vacuum but which leaves a universe too small and too smooth.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the hazard we define b eff ≡ 2|λ c | 3/2 |d ln I/dλ(µ b )| = 1.40, 1.30, and 1.19 at P 1 = 0.9, 0.5, and 0.1.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
correlational
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For L 0 ≤ 1.03 d LSS the conditional probability depends on the readout edge for A < 0.25, where no fossil was computed: at L 0 = 1.02 d LSS it is 0.945 for D ∝ A 2 , 0.997 for the linear extrapolation used in the ensemble, and 0.76 in the extreme case that such fossils are unreadable.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mode equation is invariant under t → -t, Π → -Π, so the transfer from -∞ to 0 is RM -1 R, which gives Eq. (55).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“those that move the critical top mass move it by no more than about the present α s uncertainty, ±0.35 GeV.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The characteristic equation of a trace-free 3 × 3 matrix gives tr σ 4 = S 2 /2 and tr P 2 = S 2 /6”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gauss's equation with parameters a, b = -1 4 ± iµ, µ = 53); the solution with β → 0 and Π → 1 is z 3/4 2 F 1 ( 1 2 + iµ, 1 2 -iµ; 7 4 ; z), which gives Eq. ( 56).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and with the turning-point solution κ A = 3λ A /Z eff and A κ A = 8/(1 -f 0 ).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the isotropic leading background R kk = (ρ + p) ω 2 / M 2 P with ρ + p = 4 3 ρ C”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
correlational
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With ϱ ≤ 2 and T extra ≥ 0 every term on the right except -HP/16π 2 is non-positive, so Ḣ ≤ k|H| for a constant k on a compact neighborhood.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A shape mode then obeys β = c Π/L 3 and Π = (κ/c) L 3 sech 2 (2t) β, with c = 3/2 3/2 and the normalization of Eq. ( 54).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For general H the combination of Eq. (5) becomes cW 2 -aE 4 = Q 0 + 4a Ḣ(S -6H 2 ) + HP, P = 4(c + 2a) tr(uσ) + 8(c -a) tr σ 3 + (2c + 12a)HS -24aH 3 , (A2)”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The optical tensor is B p = ωH 1 2 , so J p = tr B 2 p dλ = 2|p| H 2 L -1 dt”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With z = (1 + tanh 2t)/2 the mode equation ( 52) becomes z(1 -z)β zz + 1 4 -z 2 β z -κ 4 β = 0,(E3)”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Completeness of the basis gives A (y T X A y) 2 = 2 3 |y| 4 and A X 2 A = hence Eq. (50) for s = 2”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With f 0 = 0.30 (κ E = 19.3237) the transfer from the turn to the far future is m 11 = 10.554,m 12 = 2.4685, m 21 = 136.37,m 22 = 31.99”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For p = 1 2 the eigenvalue is 8 3 : every mode frequency 2π|G -1/2 (k + ϑ)|/L, with any fixed twist, and hence every energy of fixed occupations, has the eigenvalue of the Casimir energy”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For levels E s = e s + q s /L with ∆ sh e s = 8 3 e s and shape-independent q s ≥ 0, the free energy has ∂ A F = ⟨f A ⟩ and covariant Hessian ⟨∇ A ∇ B E⟩ -Cov(f A , f B )/T , whose trace is Eq. (51).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Flat homogeneous slices give R ijkl = K ik K jl -K il K jk , R 0i0j = -( Kij -K ik K k j ) and R 0ijk = 0.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Vacuum energy pays for the trace most cheaply, while saturating the null energy condition, so the most economical turning point combines a positive potential with a separate source of negative energy.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Obstruction and rate bound
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A top-quark pole mass above 173.7 GeV measured at FCCee would establish P 1 < 0.1 at 95% confidence; at the threshold the central P 1 is ≈ 0.023 and the Bayes factor B ex ≈ 0.033, odds of about 30 to 1 against this beginning (Sec.V F).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > V. THE HIGGS ZERO MODE AT THE TURNING POINT
hedged
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: m_t denotes the top-quark pole mass, obtained from the MS mass with the pole-MS relation truncated at four loops, and mt ≡ mt(mt) is the MS mass; the direct (Monte Carlo) mass, 172.60 ± 0.27 GeV, is identified with m_t up to an interpretation uncertainty of about 0.5 GeV.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only the state-independent trace enters, so neither negative CFT energy nor a large anisotropic CFT stress helps.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Obstruction and rate bound
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The hypercharge zero mode is therefore not fast where the Higgs zero mode sits, and a one-dimensional Born-Oppenheimer reduction is unreliable.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Replacing χ(w) by χ(r, w) and solving the radial and hypercharge motion jointly removes B w .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The validation was done at fixed couplings and without the cross terms of Sec.V C.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Complex absorbing potentials [93] give the same widths, to 0.08% in the final model.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [93]
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For antiperiodic fermions the vacuum lies at trivial holonomy and is unique [42].”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Gauge zero modes
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [42]
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Its numerical implementation has converged (Appendix D 1), and an independent blind reimplementation of the chain without cross terms, with the earlier Standard Model mapping, reproduces its critical masses to 0.005 GeV (Appendix D).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A turning point therefore needs matter with equation of state w < 1/3, and a positive potential supplies the missing trace most cheaply.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > III. THE TRACE AT A TURNING POINT
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The wall respects Gauss's law and is the only node of the walled ground state, so DMC [94][95][96] for the full zero-mode Hamiltonian in all sixteen coordinates, Eq. (D2), has no fixed-node error.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. Reduced two-dimensional model, finite-volume resonance, and full-dimensional validation
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [94]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [95]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [96]
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The gauge zero modes also shift the masses of the non-zero modes, so the one-loop energy depends jointly on r and on the holonomies (x, w).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without the nonzero modes the threshold would lie at more negative λ, and at the central inputs the zero mode would survive almost surely (P 1 ≈ 0.998 in a one-dimensional version of the model); the matching makes the outcome depend on the top-quark mass.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Zero-mode Hamiltonian and one-loop finite-volume matching
hedged
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The steep dependence on m t is that of the nearcriticality of the Standard Model [1-3]: the top-Yukawa running that sets the absolute-stability bound also converts λ c into a top mass through Eq. ( 37).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. Standard Model mapping and the critical top-quark mass
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [1]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [2]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [3]
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The SU(2) curvature is negative and lowers the well more than the barrier, which decreases Γ and partly compensates.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“so a state declared T e-folds before the turn can be adiabatic only for the modes still inside, and natural choices for the others leave them excited when they re-enter [Fig.5(b)].”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. An exact budget
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the low entropy at the turn is imposed, not explained.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. A prepared beginning
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“here the torus is flat with the AAA Standard Model content, the anomaly obstructs an anisotropic turn (Sec.III), and the restriction is the Lorentzian gate.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. A prepared beginning
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Extending the rule to all real states drives the variance to zero and w 0 → 1, the quasistationary state.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“or the state is specified at the turning point, or within about seven efolds of it, which requires only the vacuum of the light fields.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. A prepared beginning
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Either the contracting branch is a genuine past, which requires a state arranged over the whole infinite contraction, squeezed in every non-conformal mode and correlated against every coupling”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. A prepared beginning
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A compiled SMDR and our port agree to 0.005 GeV in m c .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. Standard Model mapping and the critical top-quark mass
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two-loop cross terms are not computed.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The top quark stiffens the gluon holonomy at small r and decouples at large r, which acts like a negative Higgs mass term δm 2 ≈ -0.003/L 2 and also increases Γ.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Along the turn the couplings run and the conformal time is finite, so the zero mode decays with a timedependent hazard.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sign of the total has a simple origin: the hypercharge curvature is nearly independent of r, while the tree-level stiffness of the w mode grows with r (Ω eff ≃ g Y r/2 at small r).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As a benchmark we reproduce the absolute-stability bound of Ref. [3] for their inputs, M h = 125.7 GeV and α s (M Z ) = 0.1185: 171.453GeV against 171.44 GeV.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. Standard Model mapping and the critical top-quark mass
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [3]
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and that the joint survival of both branches of the turning point has no probability in the decoherent-histories sense.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The inflation-scale item varies the tensor-to-scalar ratio over r T ∈ [10 -3 , 10 -2 ] in the plateau family at fixed scalar amplitude (assumption A3); it was computed in the earlier model of Appendix C, which the final corrections change by less than 0.001 GeV.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > F. Error budget, marginalized survival probability, and experimental reach
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A natural state must therefore be prepared within 6.9 e-folds of the turning point, shortly after the whole torus has entered the Hubble radius at T max ≃ ln(2π/hL b ) = 7.26 e-folds before the turn.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. An exact budget
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Massive fields, interactions beyond the zero-mode Hamiltonian, compact abelian flux sectors and holonomies pinned only by charged loops lie outside these statements.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. No shape minimum for negative Casimir energy
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The P 1 = 0.1 entries are computed, not extrapolated.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > F. Error budget, marginalized survival probability, and experimental reach
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The width is a property of the resonance, and the survival probability of a given state also depends on how much of it is resonant.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The shape Laplacian is thus at most 8 3 (U -⟨q⟩/L): matter with negative internal energy has no static shape minimum, thermal response and positive zero modes make the instability stronger, and static classical holonomies cannot create a minimum either (Appendix E 1).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. No shape minimum for negative Casimir energy
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this two-branch reading both branches are futures of the turning point, so the geometric completeness of the solution is no eternal past, and the past-incompleteness theorem for expand-ing spacetimes [134] does not apply because H averages to zero along every complete geodesic”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. A prepared beginning
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [134]
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The hazard is therefore the survival measure conditional on the zero mode being in the metastable sector, and w 0 is a separate preparation factor.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The trace of the shape Hessian is the Laplace-Beltrami operator on the space of unimodular metrics, and Eq. ( 50) is the Laplace eigen-equation of the SL(3, Z) Eisenstein series [136].”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. No shape minimum for negative Casimir energy
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [136]
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The same mechanism is known on a two-torus [137][138][139], Casimir back-reaction makes a torus ever thinner in 2 + 1 gravity [140] and more elongated in de Sitter space [141], and a fully compactified Standard Model on T 3 is unstable against decompactification, crunching or anisotropic evolution [36].”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. No shape minimum for negative Casimir energy
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [137]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [138]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [139]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [140]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [141]
boosted
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model-internal error of ±0.008, ±0.010, and ±0.013 GeV collects the width of the SU(2) Gaussian, the approximation for the charged components, the SU(3) width, direction averaging, first-order versus variational treatment, the residual of the RG closure, and the custodial estimate of the Coulomb term in the W direction.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > C. Zero-mode-non-zero-mode cross terms
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The last term is then an inverted harmonic potential that grows like cosh 2τ and dominates at τ ≳ 4.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We use only Lorentzian widths: a Euclidean preparation is ill defined for a negative quartic, and w 0 parametrizes the preparation instead.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. Hazard, single-branch survival probability, preparation weight, and two branches
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The shape and microwave-background predictions refer to the AAA sector”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
correlational
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it can only lower survival”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A readable fossil therefore needs a prior on the size sharply concentrated near the circle bound, and the model provides none (Ref.[63], Sec.17).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [63]
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“because superhorizon non-zero modes grow only briefly inside the curvature barrier, so it can only raise ξ c .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Instantaneous-ground-state rules and the Hartle-Hawking proposal [145] with a Θsymmetric saddle and contour belong to this class, and the CPT-symmetric proposal of Ref. [62] is an analog, while the tunneling proposal [146] is not.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. When the shape state is real
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [145]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [62]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [146]
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a blind reimplementation reproduces the model without cross terms to 0.005 GeV.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Real tunneling geometries, compact Euclidean geometries joined to Lorentzian ones across a surface of vanishing extrinsic curvature, carry the noboundary predictions for the large-scale topology [149]; the turning point has K ij = 0, but its singular Euclidean continuation is not of this kind.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > F. Nonlinear evolution and the Euclidean continuation
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [149]
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fundamental domain today therefore has the frozen shape of Sec.VII E, scaled to a present size L 0 , which we define by its volume L 3 0 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
plain
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the background is time symmetric, a moment of reality before the turn bounds the future branch and one after the turn bounds the past branch.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. When the shape state is real
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“their exact thresholds need an anisotropic model”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the interpretation of the measured top mass as a pole mass, uncertain by about 0.5 GeV”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The measured top mass is interpreted as a pole mass.
In the paper
“The complex no-boundary saddles of a three-torus [82] cap one cycle and have no turning point.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > F. Nonlinear evolution and the Euclidean continuation
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [82]
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The absence of matched circles requires every translation of the torus to exceed 0.985 d LSS [52,53], but a somewhat larger torus still correlates harmonic coefficients of different ℓ and m [56,57], and these correlations carry its shape.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [52]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [53]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [56]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [57]
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“After a few Hubble times the Casimir force, which decays as L -4 relative to the inertia, switches off and the shape freezes [24]; its outgoing distribution is the quantum fossil of the turning point (Table III).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > E. The quantum fossil
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [24]
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The joint survival of both branches has no decoherent-history probability”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the fully periodic sector, whose holonomy vacuum also has negative Casimir energy (Sec.IV A), is not analyzed.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the matching-scale variation that brackets it, +0.012/-0.049GeV, is part of Table II.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two-loop finite-volume matching is not computed”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“For a cubic torus the Planck 2013 likelihood requires L > 0.92 d LSS [158], the Planck 2015 likelihood L > 0.97 d LSS [54], and the absence of matched circles L > 0.985 d LSS [53], so a shortest cycle between 0.985 and about 1.04 d LSS is allowed by circle and likelihood searches; it lies within the range L ≲ 1.2 d LSS where offdiagonal correlations remain detectable in principle [56], and no”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [158]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [54]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [53]
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Where uniqueness fails, reality is an additional postulate, equivalent to the two-branch reading itself [61,147,148].”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. When the shape state is real
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [61]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [147]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [148]
plain
correlational
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The joint evolution of the zero and non-zero Higgs modes after the torus leaves the Hubble radius is not simulated”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These are one-dimensional comparisons with published marginals, and the tension belongs to the plateau potential: a potential with a larger tilt at the same N * changes these numbers and leaves the turning point intact, since the turn needs only V (ϕ b ) > 0 and the criterion (10).”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > A. Primordial spectra
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“three-loop electroweak thresholds are estimated from scale variation”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
hedged
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If a torus is found with its shortest cycle in this window, its aspect amplitudes should be compatible with an isotropic Gaussian of width 0.104 per mode (0.094 at next order), truncated at large elongation by the absence of circles, and its angles should lie within about a degree of 90 • .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > B. The fossil in the sky
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The floor and Eq. ( 58) take the shape state to be real at the turning point, and that state cannot be inherited from the contracting branch.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > D. When the shape state is real
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of these inputs changes the mechanism”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These checks give the numerical item, ±0.002 GeV, of Table II.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 1. Resonances and the hazard
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“evaluated to a relative accuracy of 1.7 × 10 -12”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Key results were reproduced independently, from a written specification of the model, by separately instructed AI agents without access to the author's code or derivations (the shape check was given the method sections of two derivations, but not their results); these are the blind reimplementations quoted in Secs.V and VII.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Acknowledgements
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“quantum corrections to the survival tail, the dynamical response of the minimally coupled graviton and the joint quantum state of volume, inflaton and shape remain to be computed.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Symbolic steps were checked in SymPy or Wolfram Language, and every number quoted here is reproduced by the scripts of Ref. [64] or contained in its archived outputs, including those of the independent reimplementations.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Acknowledgements
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [64]
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we checked this exactly for a rational S and numerically for 200 random S, to 2 × 10 -14 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 2. Zero modes of the Standard Model
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The shape results use the leading background with linear and classical nonlinear dynamics”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ensemble uses 2 × 10 6 shapes drawn from Eq. ( 62) with σ E = 0.1041, which gives a binomial error below 3.4 × 10 -4”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with the Higgs held in place by the zeropoint fluctuations of its own gauge fields”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our running reproduces the published SMDR running up to 10 19 GeV with |∆λ| ≤ 9 × 10 -7 , and an independent conversion of the same β functions to Wolfram Language gives λ(µ b ) to 1.8 × 10 -14 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 3. Standard Model mapping
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the two-time history set (in or out of the well at -T , in or out at +T ) the interference ratio is 0.9948-0.99997for all states and numerical variants we tested in the one-dimensional model, and these statements carry over to the two-dimensional model”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 2. Survival measure, preparation weight, late turn
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The moments, the factorization, and the Born-Huang split of Eq. ( 26) were rederived symbolically in Wolfram Language and hold numerically to 10 -14 at all r.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 3. Reduced two-dimensional model
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which we do not evaluate.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“by the Robertson-Schrödinger inequality Var β Var Π -C 2 ≥ δ 2 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a two-dimensional real-time evolution agrees with it to 2×10 -4 in P surv for ξ H ≥ 0.02 and to 1.4 × 10 -4 in ξ c , five to thirty times below the prescription bands.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 2. Survival measure, preparation weight, late turn
plain
correlational
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A Casimir turning point must start almost empty”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Across the SMDR reference models of several releases [99], the linear shift to (m t , α s , M h ) reproduces the quartic at µ b to 3.9 × 10 -5 , which is 0.006 GeV in m t .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 3. Standard Model mapping
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [99]
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“tr Hess Z eff = 8 3 Z eff holds to 10 -8 for all eight structures.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 1. Twisted image sums
plain
correlational
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The nodes τ ≤ 5 cover all but 0.7% of the conformal duration, and twenty-nine nodes instead of eleven change m c by 7 × 10 -5 GeV; all 220 grid points of the final calculation converge.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 1. Resonances and the hazard
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“masks and foregrounds can only lower the readability probabilities”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The forecast assumes idealized full-sky maps.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our main results do not rest on them”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a direct sum of the alternating series over |n i | ≤ 60 agrees to 10 -8 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 1. Twisted image sums
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For λ ≥ 0 the ground state has no nodes, so importancesampled diffusion Monte Carlo, guided by the optimal Gaussian, gives the exact local ground energy up to statistical and time-step errors”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Bounds and diffusion Monte Carlo.
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Recomputing every covariance matrix of the ensemble from the ℓ ≤ 80 transfer functions with Ref. [64] reproduces the tabulated divergences to 3 × 10 -13 , and the window edges, the peak of P joint and the integrated measure to all quoted digits.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [64]
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main uncertainty is the late-time running prescription, λ at the field value or at 1/L (frozen beyond τ = 7), and we quote the midpoint and half-difference.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The shape correction δE DMC keeps the one-loop couplings, which differ from the node couplings by at most 0.6% for τ ≤ 1, where the hazard peaks; this moves m c by an estimated 0.002 GeV or less”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 3. Reduced two-dimensional model
hedged
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Refining the basis and the radial step changes Γ by at most 8 × 10 -8 , and dropping the second-order terms of the outgoing condition by 3.4 × 10 -3 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 1. Resonances and the hazard
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our covariance code reproduces the stored covariance matrices of an earlier single-fossil analysis to 2 × 10 -14 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Raising x max from 240 to 320 or halving the taper moves the edge of the typical fossil by about 10 -4 d LSS .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A topology search that finds the torus with a shortest cycle below about 1.04 d LSS would read its shape and test the predicted fossil.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > IX. DISCUSSION
hedged
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The final calculation adds all cross terms at every node with the node couplings before the variational minimization, with a numerical error of 0.001 GeV in m c .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 4. Cross terms
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An independent build with CAMB 2.0.5 reproduces the divergence of the typical fossil at L 0 = 1.13 d LSS for ℓ ≤ 40, 7.226, to 0.10%, and an independent ensemble code using the tabulated divergences gives a peak of 0.350 near L 0 = 1.076 d LSS and an integrated measure of 0.0421.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
correlational
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Modes with kχ * > x max are replaced by the isotropic continuum through a smooth taper over the last quarter of that range, which makes C a smooth function of the shape; for ℓ ≤ 80 we use x max = 240, and at L 0 = 6 d LSS the construction reproduces the covering-space spectra with D ∼ 10 -6 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Appendix F: Microwave-background covariance and the shape ensemble
plain
direct
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“because ϵ 3 is a variational value [41,86], confirmed by the Monte Carlo below to 2 × 10 -4”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Bounds and diffusion Monte Carlo.
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [41]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [86]
plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this bound is numerical rather than rigorous.”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Bounds and diffusion Monte Carlo.
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the one-dimensional model the resonant projection decays at the hazard rate, which gives Eq. ( 32), and an independent reimplementation reproduces P ∞ = w 0 P haz,∞ with projection deviations below 10 -3 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > 2. Survival measure, preparation weight, late turn
plain
direct
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and quadrature confirms I p = -J p to 2 × 10 -16 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The code and numerical data that support the findings of this article are openly available [64]”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Data availability
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [64]
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Step-by-step derivations, alternative methods, convergence tests and a reproduction guide are given in the companion technical report [63].”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Data availability
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [63]
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and the closed forms agree with direct integration to 5 × 10 -14 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We checked these identities symbolically for unrestricted trace-free symmetric matrices, and numerically from the coordinate Riemann tensor of 500 random metric jets with noncommuting shear; the largest scaled error is 4.9 × 10 -14 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and geodesic finite differences at 40 digits confirm both to 10 -23 .”
§ A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe > Additional information
plain
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

333 of 333

The authors state this as an assumption.
The Standard Model, with a non-minimal coupling ξ_H R Φ†Φ of the Higgs doublet to the Ricci scalar, holds up to the matching scale µ_b = 1/L_b = M_P/722 ≃ 3.4×10^15 GeV; its MS couplings at µ_b follow from NNLO matching at the top-quark mass and three-loop running, with M_h = 125.13 GeV and α_s(M_Z) = 0.1180.
“(A2) The Standard Model, with a non-minimal coupling ξ H R Φ † Φ of the Higgs doublet to the Ricci scalar, holds up to the matching scale µ b ≡ 1/L b = MP /722 ≃ 3.4 × 10 15 GeV.Its MS couplings at µ b follow from next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) matching at the top-quark mass and three-loop running, with M h = 125.13GeV and α s (M Z ) = 0.1180 (Sec.V E).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The turning point is a beginning: each of the two branches, the contracting one before the turn and the expanding one after it, is read with its arrow of time pointing away from the turn; P1 is the survival probability of the Higgs zero mode along one branch, conditional on its being in the finite-volume resonance at the turn; the preparation weight w0 = 0.98-0.995 follows from the rule of A8.
“(A4) The turning point is a beginning: each of the two branches, the contracting one before the turn and the expanding one after it, is read with its arrow of time pointing away from the turn (Sec.VI).P 1 is the survival probability of the Higgs zero mode along one branch, conditional on its being in the finite-volume resonance at the turn.The preparation weight of that resonance, w 0 = 0.98-0.995”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.
“(A5) The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
ξ_H is defined at µ_b: it is the coefficient of R Φ†Φ in the zero-mode Hamiltonian at the turn, and its running gives the electroweak value.
“(A6) ξ H is defined at µ b : it is the coefficient of R Φ † Φ in the zero-mode Hamiltonian at the turn, and its running gives the electroweak value (Sec.V H).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
m_t denotes the top-quark pole mass, obtained from the MS mass with the pole-MS relation truncated at four loops, and mt ≡ mt(mt) is the MS mass; the direct (Monte Carlo) mass, 172.60 ± 0.27 GeV, is identified with m_t up to an interpretation uncertainty of about 0.5 GeV.
“(A7) m t denotes the top-quark pole mass, obtained from the MS mass with the pole-MS relation truncated at four loops, and mt ≡ mt ( mt ) is the MS mass.We identify the direct (Monte Carlo) mass, 172.60 ± 0.27 GeV [68], with m t up to an interpretation uncertainty of about 0.5 GeV”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Within this setup the Casimir energy is that of the nonzero modes of free massless fields with flat twists, whose interactions enter through the one-loop finite-volume potential of the zero modes, and all Standard Model masses are negligible at the turn, where 1/L_b exceeds the electroweak scale by thirteen orders of magnitude.
“Within this setup the Casimir energy is that of the nonzero modes of free massless fields with flat twists, whose interactions enter through the one-loop finite-volume potential of the zero modes (Sec.IV B), and all Standard Model masses are negligible at the turn, where 1/L b exceeds the electroweak scale by thirteen orders of magnitude (Ref.[63], Sec. 1).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The net coefficient b of the □R term in the trace anomaly vanishes (a choice of renormalization scheme).
“A finite local R 2 counterterm shifts the coefficient b, so b = 0 is a choice of renormalization scheme, and we take the net b to vanish.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The forecast assumes idealized full-sky maps.
“The forecast assumes idealized full-sky maps”
The authors state this as an assumption.
No unusually large two-loop finite-volume constant is assumed.
“assuming no unusually large two-loop finite-volume constant.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
At the turn the shape moduli are in the natural state: the time-symmetric Gaussian of minimal energy variance, centered on the cube.
“At the turn the shape moduli are in the natural state: the time-symmetric Gaussian of minimal energy variance, centered on the cube”
The paper relies on this without support.
The measured top mass is interpreted as a pole mass.
“the interpretation of the measured top mass as a pole mass, uncertain by about 0.5 GeV”

11 of 11

Efficient Computation of Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies in Closed Friedmann‐Robertson‐Walker Models
Lewis, A., Challinor, A., & Lasenby, A. (2000) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/309179 · Cited by 4,920 · cited 1×
“…the same time-reflection symmetry and a single resonance. ficients a Xℓm , X ∈ { T, E } , have the covariance [59] × Y ℓm (ˆ k n ) Y ℓ ′ m ′ (ˆ k n ) (F1) in a real harmonic basis, with transfer functions of un-lensed scalar perturbations from CAMB [168] for the Planck 2018 ΛCDM parameters [169].”
f(R) Theories
Felice, A. D., & Tsujikawa, S. (2010) · Living Reviews in Relativity · doi:10.12942/lrr-2010-3 · Cited by 4,327 · cited 1×
“Running couplings, masses or minimally coupled scalars break the conformal hypothesis [77, 78], and a healthy R 2 term shifts b and requires negative matter energy [79, 80].”
Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parametersPreprint
Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., Ballardini, M., Banday, A. J., Barreiro, R. B., Bartolo, N., et al. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1807.06209 · Cited by 3,364
Planck
Rasley, J., Stephens, B. E., Dixon, C., Rozner, E., Felter, W., Agarwal, K., Carter, J., & Fonseca, R. (2014) · Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication · doi:10.1145/2740070.2626310 · Cited by 3,164 · cited 1×
“…the same time-reflection symmetry and a single resonance. ficients a Xℓm , X ∈ { T, E } , have the covariance [59] × Y ℓm (ˆ k n ) Y ℓ ′ m ′ (ˆ k n ) (F1) in a real harmonic basis, with transfer functions of un-lensed scalar perturbations from CAMB [168] for the Planck 2018 ΛCDM parameters [169].”
Quantum Monte Carlo simulations of solids
Foulkes, W. M. C., Mitáš, L., Needs, R. J., & Rajagopal, G. (2001) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.73.33 · Cited by 2,406
Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO
Degrassi, G., Di Vita, S., Elias-Miró, J., Espinosa, J. R., Giudice, G. F., Isidori, G., & Strumia, A. (2012) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep08(2012)098 · Cited by 1,524 · cited 3×
“The critical masses depend on α s as The steep dependence on m t is that of the near-criticality of the Standard Model [1–3]: the top-Yukawa running that sets the absolute-stability bound also converts λ c into a top mass through Eq.”
On the wave function of the universe
Gonzalez-diaz, P. (1985) · doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)90111-x · Cited by 1,331 · cited 1×
“Instantaneous-ground-state rules and the Hartle–Hawking proposal [148] with a Θ-symmetric saddle and contour belong to this class, and the CPT-symmetric proposal of Ref.”
Investigating the near-criticality of the Higgs boson
Buttazzo, D., Degrassi, G., Giardino, P. P., Giudice, G. F., Sala, F., Salvio, A., & Strumia, A. (2013) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep12(2013)089 · Cited by 1,095 · cited 3×
“[2].”
Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck , WMAP, and BICEP/ Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season
Ade, P. A. R., Ahmed, Z., Amiri, M., Barkats, D., Thakur, R. B., Bischoff, C. A., Beck, D., Bock, J. J., Boenish, H., Bullock, E., et al. (2021) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.151301 · Cited by 1,014 · cited 1×
“036 [158] and three to four times the LiteBIRD target δr T = 10 − 3 [159].”
DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints
Abdul Karim, M., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., Alam, S., Allen, L., Prieto, C. A., Alves, O., Anand, A., Andrade, U., Armengaud, E., et al. (2025) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 · Cited by 856 · cited 1×
“9 σ below it; adding DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillations [156] to the same combination gives n s = 0 .”

Show all 172 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

Y. B. Zeldovich and A. A. Starobinsky, Quantum cre- ation of a universe in a nontrivial topology, Sov. Astron. Lett. 10, 135 (1984).
A. A. Starobinsky, A New Type of Isotropic Cosmolog- ical Models Without Singularity, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 (1980). · DOI · Paper page
P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Planck 2015 results -XVIII. Background geometry and topology of the Universe, Astron. Astrophys. 594, A18 (2016), arXiv:1502.01593 [astro-ph.CO]. · DOI
F. Takahashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 41, 2630011 (2026). · DOI
P. Anderson, Effects of quantum fields on singularities and particle horizons in the early universe, Phys. Rev. D 28, 271 (1983). · DOI · Paper page
U. V. Riss and H.-D. Meyer, Calculation of resonance energies and widths using the complex absorbing poten- tial method, J. Phys. B 26, 4503 (1993). · DOI
N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge Monographs on Mathemat- ical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982). · DOI · Paper page
L. Parker, Quantized fields and particle creation in ex- panding universes. 1., Phys. Rev. 183, 1057 (1969). · DOI
S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Radiative Correc- tions as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rev. D 7, 1888 (1973). · DOI

Sorted by citations

Gauge Field Fluctuations Protect the Higgs Vacuum When a Small Universe BeginsPreprint
Zhang, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.28704

See all 1

Authors: Zhang, A.
Affiliations: Perimeter Institute (CA)
Corresponding author: Zhang, Alan
Venue: arXiv
Publisher: arXiv
Published: 2026
ISSN: 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2610.24905
arXiv: 2610.24905
OpenAlex: W7223044822
Semantic Scholar: 59ade1a4207087c5b0ba7ef5c7171a65ad414c9f
Cited by: 0
References: 172
Type: posted content
Language: en
Open access: green
arxiv.org
Licence: arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations: arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders: McMaster University
Government of Canada
Institut Périmètre de physique théorique
Topics: Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Electrodynamics and Casimir Effect
Keywords: Casimir energy, negative energy, flat universe, trace anomaly, Standard Model fields, Higgs quartic coupling, curvature coupling, top quark pole mass, cosmic microwave background, reheating

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-30, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-30 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe

Abstract

Overview

AI snapshot

TL;DR

Key findings

Methods

Limitations

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks