Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A Quantum Superposition of Black Hole Evaporation Histories: Recovering Unitarity

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that a quantum model of black hole evaporation can be unitary, so that the initial state of the black hole is recoverable from the final radiation.

desk verdict A serious toy model with a solid single-subsystem isometry proof; the two-subsystem recovery claim is overreaching and needs repair. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17031 v1 pith:UGBCSBMQ submitted 2025-07-22 gr-qc hep-thquant-ph

Ali Akil , Lorenzo Giannelli , Leonardo Modesto , Oscar Dahlsten , Giulio Chiribella , Caslav Brukner This is my paper
classification gr-qchep-thquant-ph PACS 04.70.Dy04.60.-m
keywords blackholeinformationparadoxunitarityradiationquantumsuperpositioncontrolledsqueezingevaporationisometryPagecurvetoymodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Black hole evaporation is usually treated as quantum fields on a fixed classical spacetime, leaving the radiation mixed and the initial information apparently destroyed. This paper instead lets the black hole mass itself be quantum, so evaporation unfolds as a superposition of fully evaporated and not-yet-evaporated histories. Semiclassical particle production is modelled by repeated mass-controlled squeezing, and each burst coherently reduces the black hole mass by the emitted energy. The paper proves that the evaporation map is an isometry at every step, that all branches evaporate asymptotically, and that the initial black-hole state can in principle be recovered from the final radiation. If the model is right, unitarity can survive evaporation once back-reaction is treated quantum-coherently.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the evaporation isometry $V_{\rm ev}$, treated as a single indivisible operation rather than as a sequence of pair production followed by annihilation; writing it as $(W\otimes I_{\rm out})V_{\rm prod}$ is bookkeeping, and the paper shows that decomposing it into fundamental steps would permit instantaneous signalling. The controlled-squeezing operator, of the form $\mathrm{CS} = |0\rangle\langle0|_{\rm bh}\otimes I_{\rm int,out} + \sum_{m>0}|m\rangle\langle m|_{\rm bh}\otimes S(m)_{\rm int,out}$, makes the squeezing parameter depend on the black-hole mass, giving each branch of the superposition its own radiation rate and implementing quantum-coherent back-reaction. The isometry property carries the argument: it guarantees that the map from black-hole mass states to radiation states preserves all inner products, and the effective channel is shown to be close to an isometry in diamond norm, so the initial amplitudes are asymptotically recoverable.

What would settle it

Calculate the effective channel from black-hole mass to radiation in a setting where the interior and exterior are not tensor factors and show that the map fails to be close to an isometry for large numbers of bursts; alternatively, exhibit an implementation of the elementary operation whose decomposition necessarily permits instantaneous signalling, which would contradict the claimed indivisibility.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that evaporation can be described by a single elementary isometry $V_{\rm ev}$ defined by $V_{\rm ev}|m\rangle_{\rm bh} = c_m \sum_{\omega=0}^{m} e^{-\pi m\omega} |m-\omega\rangle_{\rm bh}|\omega\rangle_{\rm out}$. Because this operation maps the orthonormal mass basis into orthonormal states, it preserves all inner products and therefore all superposition phases; repeated application generates a superposition of evaporation histories, each branch radiating at a rate set by its current mass. The paper proves a lower bound on the probability that the hole is fully gone after $k$ bursts, $p^{(k)}_{\rm ev}(M) \ge 1 - [1 - e^{-2\pi M^2}(1-e^{-2\pi M m_*})]^k$, so every branch evaporates asymptotically. For a two-subsystem black hole, the amplitudes $f(m)$ of the internal mass superposition are transferred to mutually orthogonal radiation states, so the initial quantum state can in principle be read out from the radiation. The radiation entropy rises and later falls, producing a Page-curve-like shape, and the whole process is unitary at all times, with no information loss.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes that one indivisible quantum operation can simultaneously create a particle pair and annihilate exactly the emitted energy from black-hole matter living on a factorized interior/exterior Hilbert space; if real black holes do not admit this split, the unitarity result need not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, information is not destroyed: after enough emission bursts the state of the radiation alone asymptotically determines the initial black-hole state, including quantum superposition phases.
  • The radiation entropy follows a Page-curve-like trajectory, rising while many non-evaporated branches remain and then falling to zero as full evaporation becomes probable, so purity is restored without invoking exotic final states.
  • The branch structure sidesteps the firewall and monogamy objections: early and late radiation are entangled with the interior in some branches and with each other in others, never in the same branch.
  • Because information can leak in partially evaporated branches, an external observer could recover partial information before evaporation is complete; frequent measurement could freeze a branch and restore an effectively fixed horizon.
  • Total mass information remains accessible from outside, consistent with the no-hair picture, while the finer mass-superposition information exits through the emitted radiation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • As an extension beyond the paper: if the central claim is right, the black-hole-to-radiation map is an isometric code whose codewords are mass eigenstates, inviting information-theoretic questions about error correction that the paper does not address.
  • The model assumes a tensor-product split between interior and exterior degrees of freedom, which the authors flag as debatable; if a fuller theory replaces that factorized Hilbert space, the same operation need not remain an isometry, so the unitarity conclusion may be special to this structure.
  • The indivisibility of the elementary operation is essential, since splitting it would allow instantaneous signalling; a concrete next step would be to check whether a beam-splitter mechanism for annihilation can be packaged as a single isometry without introducing that signalling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a finite-dimensional toy model of black hole evaporation in which the black hole mass is a quantum degree of freedom and each evaporation step is represented by an operator V_ev mapping mass eigenstates to coherent superpositions of lower-mass black hole states and radiation. The authors show that the probability of complete evaporation increases with the number of steps and tends to 1, that the effective channel from the black hole to the radiation is approximately isometric in the single-subsystem case, and that the resulting radiation entropy has a Page-curve-like rise and fall. They then propose a two-subsystem extension, claiming that the complex amplitudes f(m) of the internal mass superposition can be recovered from the final radiation state, and they conclude that the evaporation process is unitary with no information loss. The central single-subsystem convergence and isometric-channel arguments are developed in the Methods and Appendices B and C; the two-subsystem recovery claim is stated in the Results and discussed in the Methods but, in my reading, is not proved there.

Significance. If the claimed results held in full, the paper would provide a concrete toy model in which a quantum superposition of evaporation histories preserves information and yields a Page-like entropy curve, which would be a useful conceptual datapoint for the information paradox debate. The paper has real strengths: the convergence bound in Eq. (8) is explicit, Appendix B gives a rigorous diamond-norm estimate for the single-subsystem effective channel, Appendix C shows how total-mass superposition amplitudes are transferred to radiation, and Appendix F contains self-contained MATLAB code for the numerical entropy curve. These are concrete and checkable contributions. However, the headline claim of information recovery from the radiation is carried by the two-subsystem model, and that part is not backed by a proof; moreover, the unitarity of the model is essentially true by construction because V_ev is defined as an isometry. The result is best described as a consistent toy model with a partially proved encoding property, not as a derivation of unitarity from physical assumptions.

major comments (5)
  1. [Methods, Eq. (36)] Equation (36) states an exact equality that is algebraically incorrect: the ratio of the truncated geometric sums is (1 - e^{-2πM(M-m*+1)})/(1 - e^{-2πM(M+1)}) for integer masses, not the product shown on the right-hand side. The subsequent bound in Eq. (37) can likely be repaired with elementary estimates since Eq. (35) and the positivity of p^{(1)}_ev(M) already force convergence, but the derivation as written must be corrected.
  2. [Methods, "Preservation of information about the internal mass superposition", Eqs. (40)–(44)] The central two-subsystem recovery claim is not proved. Equation (44) is a statement about the probability p'_{ev,A} that subsystem A is fully annihilated; it contains no information about the complex phases of f(m,m_A) and does not establish that the radiation marginal after n steps is an isometric encoding of f(m). No analogue of the diamond-norm bound (38) is derived for the two-subsystem effective channel, and the sentence immediately after Eq. (44) asserting a one-to-one map of the amplitudes is therefore an assertion rather than a consequence of the displayed equations.
  3. [Results and Methods, Eqs. (9)–(11) and (40)–(41)] The product form announced in Eq. (40), V_ev(|m_A>⊗|m-m_A>) = |Ψ^{(A,m)}_{m_A}>⊗|Ψ^{(B,m)}_{m-m_A}>, is not implied by the general expression in Eq. (41), which is a single sum over ω_1,ω_2 with amplitudes q(ω_1,ω_2). The factorized form follows only if q(ω_1,ω_2) itself factorizes, and the paper does not state or justify such a condition. This ambiguity propagates into the asserted form of Eq. (11) and needs to be resolved before the recovery claim is credible.
  4. [Eqs. (2)–(3) and (27); Appendix E] The unitarity of the model is built into the definition of V_ev: since {|m>_bh} is an orthonormal basis and the states |Ψ_m> in Eq. (27) are orthonormal by construction, V_ev is an isometry immediately. The paper should therefore describe unitarity as a property of the toy model, not as a derived physical result. The substantive physical assumption is the indivisibility of V_ev: Appendix E shows that decomposing it into V_prod and W permits instantaneous signaling, so the indivisibility is doing essential work, yet no physical derivation or locality argument for this indivisible elementary operation is provided.
  5. [Abstract and Discussion] The abstract's claim that the initial state can be recovered from the final asymptotic radiation state is proven, in the current manuscript, only for superpositions of total mass eigenstates in the single-subsystem model. For the two-subsystem model with internal amplitudes f(m), which is the model singled out in the Introduction and Discussion as carrying fine-grained information, the required proof is missing. The claims in the abstract and Discussion should be narrowed accordingly unless the missing argument is supplied.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1 and Appendix F] The caption of Figure 1 describes a numerical simulation, but the comment in Appendix F says the code generates "Figure 2"; the figure labels and code comments should be reconciled.
  2. [Notation throughout] The mass unit m* is used inconsistently: some sums run over ω = 0,...,m as if ω and m have the same units, while the Methods introduces n = ω/m* quanta of energy m*. A uniform statement of units and of the upper summation limits would improve readability.
  3. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A14)–(A15)] The two displayed forms of S(ζ)|0,0> differ by a sign convention: Eq. (A14) contains (-tanh ζ)^k and Eq. (A15) contains (tanh ζ)^k. The choice ζ = -arctanh(e^{-M}) makes them consistent, but this should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.
  4. [Results, Eq. (12)] The decomposition in Eq. (12) uses f_ev and f_nonev without defining their normalization relative to the branches; a sentence stating that these are the conditional and total amplitudes would remove ambiguity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The unitarity claim is built into the definition of V_ev as an isometry; the two-subsystem recovery result is assumed in the form of Eq. (11).

  1. self definitional [Methods, 'Combined operator for radiation production and annihilation with black hole matter', Eqs. (26)-(28); see also Results Eqs. (2)-(3).]
    "The fact that Vev is an isometry can be seen from the explicit expression Vev = ∑ m |Ψ m⟩bh, out⟨m|bh, with |Ψ m⟩ = ∑ ω √ pm(ω) |m −ω⟩bh|ω⟩out, as Vev sends an orthonormal basis to an orthonormal basis."

    The map V_ev is defined on the orthonormal mass basis {|m>} to an orthonormal family {|Ψ_m>} by Eqs. (2)-(3) and (27)-(28). The statement 'V_ev sends an orthonormal basis to an orthonormal basis' is therefore the definition of an isometry, not a derived physical result. The abstract's 'we prove ... this evaporation model is unitary' and the paper's 'there is no loss of information' follow immediately from this definition. Eq. (8) proves convergence to full evaporation, and Appendix B is a genuine channel-approximation bound, but neither generates the information-preserving property; it was inserted as the ansatz for V_ev.

  2. other [Results, 'Extension to black hole with subsystems', Eq. (11); Methods, 'Preservation of information about the internal mass superposition', Eq. (44).]
    "Now, suppose that n evaporation steps affected A and B. For large n, similar methods to those shown earlier in this paper imply that the state of the radiation after a large n evaporation steps is approximately of the form |ψrad⟩(n) = ∑_{m=0}^M f^{(n)}(m)|Λ_m⟩radA ⊗ |Λ_{M−m}⟩radB, where {|Λ_m⟩radA}_m ({|Λ_{M−m}⟩radB}_m) are orthogonal states of the radiation modes that annihilated A (B). This observation shows that the information encoded in the amplitudes {f^{(n)}(m)} in the initial state as in Eq."

    Eq. (11) is not derived; 'similar methods' is the only justification. The displayed final state already encodes the coefficients f^{(n)}(m) in orthogonal radiation states |Λ_m>⊗|Λ_{M−m}>, which is precisely the recovery conclusion to be established. The paper's supporting statement that 'the final state in Eq. (44) contains those amplitudes in a one-to-one map' is not supported by Eq. (44), which is only a scalar probability p'_ev,A; no invertible map from the radiation marginal to f(m) is exhibited. The conclusion is thus assumed in the form of the final state rather than proved.

full rationale

The paper is largely a construction, not an empirical prediction, and most of the mathematical work is self-contained: the recurrence leading to Eq. (8) is a real proof that the full-evaporation probability tends to 1, and Appendix B's diamond-norm bound is a genuine theorem about the single-subsystem channel. There are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems; citations to the authors' earlier work (Refs. 34, 42-44) are background or context. However, the central claim that the model is unitary and that the initial state can be recovered is not derived from Hawking physics: the evaporation operator V_ev is defined in Eqs. (2)-(3)/(27)-(28) to map an orthonormal mass basis to an orthonormal output family, so isometricity and information preservation are true by construction. The convergence result (8) is independent and non-circular, but it only establishes that the black hole evaporates; it does not supply the information-preserving character, which was put into the definition of V_ev. In the two-subsystem extension, the recovery claim is additionally asserted by postulating Eq. (11) rather than proving it, with the one-to-one map left unexhibited; this is a question-begging step and a correctness gap, though it is not a fit or a self-citation. Overall circularity score 6: the headline 'proof of unitarity/recovery' reduces by construction, while the convergence and approximate-isometry estimates retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small number of modeling choices: a factorized Hilbert space, a truncated Hawking pair state, an annihilation rule W, and the indivisibility of V_ev. None of these is derived from quantum gravity; the paper itself acknowledges most of them as assumptions. The two free parameters are the mass unit m* and the unspecified amplitudes q.

free parameters (2)
  • m* (elementary mass unit) = not fitted (integer mass quantization)
    All black hole masses are assumed integer multiples of m*; m* enters the truncation of Eq. (1) and the convergence bound Eq. (8).
  • q(omega1,omega2) annihilation amplitudes = arbitrary, unspecified
    In the two-subsystem model, the amplitudes for annihilating subsystem A vs B are introduced in Eq. (10) as arbitrary; the information-recovery claim is made for all q without specifying or deriving q.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Tensor-product factorization of H_bh, H_int, H_out
    Explicitly flagged by the authors as debatable: 'our approach assumes a tensor product structure... remains a matter of debate.'
  • domain assumption Truncated Hawking pair state Eq. (1)
    The infinite Hawking sum is truncated at omega <= m to enforce energy conservation; this changes the state from the standard two-mode squeezed state.
  • ad hoc to paper Annihilation rule W: |m>|omega>_int|omega>_out -> |m-omega>|omega>_out
    This is the mechanism that transfers mass to radiation; W alone is not an isometry, and the combined V_ev must be treated as elementary (Appendix E).
  • ad hoc to paper V_ev is an indivisible elementary operation
    Appendix E shows that decomposing V_ev into V_prod and W permits instantaneous signaling; the authors therefore postulate indivisibility, which is necessary for causality.
invented entities (1)
  • negative-energy interior Hawking mode acting as annihilator of black hole matter (W map)
    purpose: Implements mass loss and quantum back-reaction; carries correlations from interior to exterior.
    The W annihilation rule is postulated; the paper itself says 'more in-depth work is required to find out how exactly the annihilation happens.' The int mode is standard Hawking flux, but its role as a local annihilator is new and unverified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Quantum Superposition of Black Hole Evaporation Histories: Recovering Unitarity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UGBCSBMQ

@misc{pith2026250717031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Quantum Superposition of Black Hole Evaporation Histories: Recovering Unitarity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UGBCSBMQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17031}
}
read the original abstract

Black hole evaporation is one of the most striking phenomena at the interface between gravity and quantum physics. In Hawking's semi-classical treatment, where matter is quantum mechanical and the spacetime is definite and classical, evaporation leads to an apparent loss of unitarity of the overall evolution, and to the so-called black hole information paradox. Here, we go beyond this semi-classical treatment and formulate a toy quantum model of black hole evaporation that allows the black hole to evolve into a superposition of being fully evaporated and not fully evaporated, consistent with the Hawking particles being in a coherent superposition of different energy levels. We model Hawking particle production by the repeated action of quantum-controlled unitaries, generating emission from the quantum black hole and accounting for a quantum coherent back-reaction on the black hole matter state. We show that the probability of full annihilation of the black hole matter increases with time until the black hole is, asymptotically, fully evaporated in every branch of the quantum superposition. We prove that under natural assumptions, this evaporation model is unitary, such that the initial state can in principle be recovered from the final asymptotic state of the radiation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17031 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Black hole evaporates and entropy of radiation vanishes. Numerical simulation of a two-mode black hole toy model with initial state |bhmi = |miA |miB = |4iA |4iB . The expectation value of mA + mB is shown to decay, and the entropy of the black hole is shown to rise and then fall. Since the total state is pure, the entropy of the black hole equals that of the outside radiation. Simulation details are provided in the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The combined evaporation operation. The circuit diagram shows the equivalence between a sequence of operations (creation of auxiliary int systems via G, controlled￾S operation, and partial projection W) and a single map Vev on system A and out. In this simple case, there is a single system A representing the black hole. The Hawking pair par￾ticles are int and out. with |Ψmi = X ω p pm(ω)|m − ωibh|ωiout , (28) as Vev… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Particle detector in a position-superposed black hole spacetime

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    An Unruh-DeWitt detector interacting with a position-superposed BTZ black hole produces outcome probabilities containing a nonclassical contribution that distinguishes quantum superposition from classical mixtures, ar...

  2. Quantum coherent dynamics of quasiclassical spacetimes

    gr-qc 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Quasiclassical spacetimes are modeled as nonorthogonal coherent states whose Hamiltonian generates tunneling between geometries, recovering the semiclassical black-hole evaporation curve as the most probable path.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    interior

    A rise and fall in subsystem entropy also occurs with states picked from the uniform distribution over quantum states used by Page [ 8]. Three distinctions: (i) here we are not picking states or dy- namics at random from the uniform distribution; (ii) the x-axis in our curve is time or number of emissions rather than the number of subsystems; (iii) subsys...

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Black Holes and Thermodynamics,

    S. W. Hawking, “Black Holes and Thermodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 13, 191 (1976)

    1976

  3. [3]

    Quantum Fields in Curved Space,

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, “Quantum Fields in Curved Space,”

    work page

  4. [4]

    Conditioning on the branch where the black hole has fully evaporated, no horizon exists, and the inside and outside are disentangled

    into two branches, an evaporated part and a non- evaporated part. Conditioning on the branch where the black hole has fully evaporated, no horizon exists, and the inside and outside are disentangled. Tracing out the inside conditional on that case yields a pure state outside as it is straightforward to see. On the other hand, in the branches where the eva...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Normally, negative energy matter is not allowed by the laws of physics, however, inside the black hole, since the time dimension and the radial space dimension switch roles, what is negative energy from outside is seen inside as a negative momentum, thus not violating the laws of physics

    work page

  6. [6]

    into the superposition of an evaporated branch and a non-evaporated branch: |Ψ (2) M ⟩bh, out1, out2 =cM M∑ ω 1=0 cM−ω 1 M−ω 1∑ ω 2=0 e−πM (ω 1+ω 2)eπω 1ω 2 × |0⟩bh |ω1⟩out1 |ω2⟩out2δM,ω 1+ω 2 +cM M∑ ω 1=0 cM−ω 1 M−ω 1∑ ω 2=0 e−πM (ω 1+ω 2)eπω 1ω 2 × |M −ω1 −ω2⟩bh |ω1⟩out1|ω2⟩out2(1 −δM,ω 1+ω 2 ). (7) As is evident from this equation, conditioning on the ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Both equations (

    or, equivalently, Eq.( 15)) as a single burst of radiation, with the full evaporation process con- stituting multiple such bursts. Both equations (

    work page

  8. [8]

    int” and “out

    makes it clear that after many bursts of radiation, this happens with a probability approaching 1. In order to further compare our findings to previous literature, we now analyze the issue of the monogamy of entanglement. Monogamy implies that the ‘out’ Hawking particles cannot be entangled with each other to purify the radiation state, because each of tho...

    work page

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    The Page Curve The entropy of the radiation rises and falls similarly to the Page Curve of Ref

    with Eq.( 11). The Page Curve The entropy of the radiation rises and falls similarly to the Page Curve of Ref. [ 8]. Fig. 1 shows the Renyi-2 En- tropy − log tr(ρ2) for the radiation numerically computed for a specific initial state. Initially, the radiation is, by as- sumption...

  2. [10]

    and ( 15) are the results of apply- ing the squeezing operator on the vacuum state. The squeezing operator reads, S(k,M ) = eζ(k,M )(aint† −k aout† k −aint −kaout k ), (16) where ζ(k,M ) = arctan ( e−πkM ) , k is the energy of the emitted particles, and M is the total black ho...

  3. [11]

    Unitarity of black hole evapo - ration in final-state projection models,

    S. Lloyd and J. Preskill, “Unitarity of black hole evapo - ration in final-state projection models,” JHEP 1408, 126 (2014) [arXiv:1308.4209 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Particle Creation by Black Holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Particle Creation by Black Holes,” Com- 29 mun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975) Erratum: [Commun. Math. Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  5. [13]

    The black hole interior from non-isometric codes and complexity,

    C. Akers, N. Engelhardt, D. Harlow, G. Penington and S. Vardhan, “The black hole interior from non-isometric codes and complexity,” [arXiv:2207.06536 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Our model incorporates repeated bursts of Hawking radiation

    and reads, |φM⟩ = √ 1 − e−2πM ∞∑ ω e−πM ω |−ω⟩int ⊗ |ω⟩out, (15) where √ 1 − e−2πM is a normalization factor. Our model incorporates repeated bursts of Hawking radiation. The Hawking state of Eq.( 14) is commonly thought of as the full state of all radiation throughout 10 the ...

  7. [15]

    Alessandro Fabbri, Jose Navarro-Salas, Modeling Black Hole Evaporation, Imperial College Press, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    White Holes as Remnants: A Surprising Scenario for the End of a Black Hole,

    E. Bianchi, M. Christodoulou, F. D’Ambrosio, C. Rov- elli and H. M. Haggard, “White Holes as Remnants: A Surprising Scenario for the End of a Black Hole,” arXiv:1802.04264 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Breakdown of Predictability in Gravita- tional Collapse,

    S. W. Hawking, “Breakdown of Predictability in Gravita- tional Collapse,” Phys. Rev. D 14, 2460 (1976)

    1976

  10. [18]

    Information in black hole radiation,

    D. N. Page, “Information in black hole radiation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3743 (1993) [hep-th/9306083]

    1993 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A verage entropy of a subsystem,

    D. N. Page, “A verage entropy of a subsystem,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1291 (1993) [gr-qc/9305007]

    1993 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Black hole information,

    D. N. Page, “Black hole information,” hep-th/9305040

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Black holes as mirrors: Quan - tum information in random subsystems,

    P. Hayden and J. Preskill, “Black holes as mirrors: Quan - tum information in random subsystems,” JHEP 09, 120 (2007) [arXiv:0708.4025 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A. Akil, M. Cadoni, L. Modesto, M. Oi and A. P. Sanna, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.4, 044051 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.044051 [arXiv:2211.01657 [gr- qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Quantum Computation vs. Firewalls,

    D. Harlow and P. Hayden, “Quantum Computation vs. Firewalls,” JHEP 06, 085 (2013) [arXiv:1301.4504 [hep- th]]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gedanken experiments involving black holes,

    L. Susskind and L. Thorlacius, “Gedanken experiments involving black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 49, 966 (1994) [hep- th/9308100]

    1994

  17. [25]

    This relation implies the relation ⟨pm(m)⟩ ≥ pM (M ) ≡ p(1) ev (M ) for the expectation value of pm(m)

    implies the expression pm(m) = e −2πm 2 /(∑ m ω =0 e−2πmω ), which implies pm(m) ≥ pM (M ) for every m ≤ M . This relation implies the relation ⟨pm(m)⟩ ≥ pM (M ) ≡ p(1) ev (M ) for the expectation value of pm(m). Inserting this relation into Eq. ( 32), we then obtain the bound...

  18. [26]

    The Generalized uncertainty principle and black hole remnants,

    R. J. Adler, P. Chen and D. I. Santiago, “The Generalized uncertainty principle and black hole remnants,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 33, 2101-2108 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/0106080 [gr-qc]]

    2001 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Black Hole Rem- nants and the Information Loss Paradox,

    P. Chen, Y. C. Ong and D. h. Yeom, “Black Hole Rem- nants and the Information Loss Paradox,” Phys. Rept. 603, 1-45 (2015) [arXiv:1412.8366 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    H. M. Haggard and C. Rovelli, Black hole fireworks: quantum-gravity effects outside the horizon spark black to white hole tunneling,” Physical Review D92 (2015) 104020, arXiv:1407.0989

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Improved Black Hole Fire- works: Asymmetric Black-Hole-to-White-Hole Tunnel- ing Scenario,

    T. De Lorenzo and A. Perez, “Improved Black Hole Fire- works: Asymmetric Black-Hole-to-White-Hole Tunnel- ing Scenario,” Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 12, 124018 (2016) [arXiv:1512.04566 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Regular Black Holes,

    C. Bambi, “Regular Black Holes,” Springer Singapore, 2023, [arXiv:2307.13249 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Black super- novae and black holes in non-local gravity,

    C. Bambi, D. Malafarina and L. Modesto, “Black super- novae and black holes in non-local gravity,” JHEP 1604, 147 (2016) [arXiv:1603.09592 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Black hole evaporation in conformal gravity,

    C. Bambi, L. Modesto, S. Porey and L. Rachwal, “Black hole evaporation in conformal gravity,” JCAP 1709, no. 09, 033 (2017) [arXiv:1611.05582 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Replica Wormholes and the En- tropy of Hawking Radiation,

    A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghou- lian and A. Tajdini, “Replica Wormholes and the En- tropy of Hawking Radiation,” JHEP 05, 013 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2020)013 [arXiv:1911.12333 [hep- th]]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    An introduction to black holes, information and the string theory revolution: The holographic universe,

    L. Susskind and J. Lindesay, “An introduction to black holes, information and the string theory revolution: The holographic universe,” Hackensack, USA: World Scientific (2005) 183 p

    2005

  27. [35]

    The Black hole final state,

    G. T. Horowitz and J. M. Maldacena, “The Black hole final state,” JHEP 0402, 008 (2004) [hep-th/0310281]

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    The Stretched horizon and black hole complementarity,

    L. Susskind, L. Thorlacius and J. Uglum, “The Stretched horizon and black hole complementarity,” Phys. Rev. D 48, 3743 (1993) [hep-th/9306069]

    1993 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bla ck Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls?,

    A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski and J. Sully, “Bla ck Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls?,” JHEP 1302, 062 (2013) [arXiv:1207.3123 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bet- ter Late than Never: Information Retrieval from Black Holes,

    S. L. Braunstein, S. Pirandola and K. Zyczkowski, “Bet- ter Late than Never: Information Retrieval from Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, no. 10, 101301 (2013) [arXiv:0907.1190 [quant-ph]]. 30

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Post-firewall para- doxes,

    S. L. Braunstein and S. Pirandola, “Post-firewall para- doxes,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 376, 0324 (2018) doi:10.1098/rsta.2017.0324 [arXiv:1411.7195 [quant-ph ]]

    2018

  32. [40]

    The black hole information problem beyond quantum theory,

    M. P. Mueller, J. Oppenheim and O. C. O. Dahlsten “The black hole information problem beyond quantum theory,” JHEP 1209, 116 (2012) [arXiv:1206.5030 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  33. [41]

    The state then reads, Vev(|mA⟩A|m −mA⟩B) = √ pm(ω1 +ω2)q(mA,m−mA)|0⟩A|0⟩B|mA,m−mA⟩out + mA−m∗∑ ω 1=0 M−mA−m∗∑ ω 2=0 √ pm(ω1 +ω2)q(ω1,ω 2)|m−ω1⟩A ⊗|m−mA−ω2⟩B|ω1,ω 2⟩out

    into the evaporated branches and non-evaporated branches. The state then reads, Vev(|mA⟩A|m −mA⟩B) = √ pm(ω1 +ω2)q(mA,m−mA)|0⟩A|0⟩B|mA,m−mA⟩out + mA−m∗∑ ω 1=0 M−mA−m∗∑ ω 2=0 √ pm(ω1 +ω2)q(ω1,ω 2)|m−ω1⟩A ⊗|m−mA−ω2⟩B|ω1,ω 2⟩out . (42) As is evident in Eq.( 42), in the branches w...

  34. [42]

    The Information paradox: A Pedagogi- cal introduction,

    S. D. Mathur, “The Information paradox: A Pedagogi- cal introduction,” Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 224001 (2009) [arXiv:0909.1038 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Since the final state in Eq

    is en- coded in the amplitudes f (m,m A). Since the final state in Eq. ( 44) contains those amplitudes in a one-to-one map, the information about the initial state can always be found in the final state of the black hole radiation. An alternative argument to reach the same concl...

  36. [44]

    Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Paradox,

    G. Penington, “Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Paradox,” JHEP 09, 002 (2020) [arXiv:1905.08255 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Replica wormholes and the black hole interior,

    G. Penington, S. H. Shenker, D. Stanford and Z. Yang, “Replica wormholes and the black hole interior,” JHEP 03, 205 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2022)205 [arXiv:1911.11977 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A. Akil, O. Dahlsten and L. Modesto, New J. Phys. 23 (2021) no.11, 113011 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ac17bb

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    Nonviolent nonlocality,

    S. B. Giddings, “Nonviolent nonlocality,” Phys. Rev. D 88, 064023 (2013) [arXiv:1211.7070 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Solving information loss paradox via Euclidean path integral,

    P. Chen, M. Sasaki, D. h. Yeom and J. Yoon, “Solving information loss paradox via Euclidean path integral,” [arXiv:2111.01005 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Black Hole Entropy and Planckian Discrete- ness,

    A. Perez, “Black Hole Entropy and Planckian Discrete- ness,” [arXiv:2310.19389 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    How does information emerge from a black hole?,

    S. Raju, “How does information emerge from a black hole?,” [arXiv:2404.00374 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Quantum circuit model of black hole evaporation,

    T. Tokusumi, A. Matsumura, and Y. Nambu, “Quantum circuit model of black hole evaporation,” CQG 35, no. 23, 235013 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.101301 [arXiv:1807.07672 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Stimulated emission of radiation and the bla ck hole information problem,

    C. Adami, “Stimulated emission of radiation and the bla ck hole information problem,” Annals Phys. 468, 169739 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2024.169739 [arXiv:2306.1384 5 [gr-qc]]

    2024

  45. [53]

    The firewall paradox is Wigner’s friend paradox

    L. Hausmann and R. Renner, “The firewall paradox is Wigner’s friend paradox”, in "The Black Hole Infor- mation Paradox: A Fifty-Year Journey" (Eds. A. Akil and C. Bambi, Springer Singapore, 2025), ISBN: 978- 981-96-6169-5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-6169- 5 [arXiv:2504....

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Blac k Hole Information From Non-vacuum Localised Quantum States,

    A. Akil, R. Falcone, N. T. Vidal and G. Chiribella, “Blac k Hole Information From Non-vacuum Localised Quantum States,” [arXiv:2504.17911 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Akil and C

    A. Akil and C. Bambi (Eds.), The Black Hole Information Paradox: A Fifty-Year Journey (Springer Singapore, 2025), ISBN: 978-981-96-6169- 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-6169-5

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    Numerical observation of Hawking radiation from acoustic black holes in atomic BECs,

    I. Carusotto, S. Fagnocchi, A. Recati, R. Balbinot and A. Fabbri, “Numerical observation of Hawking radiation from acoustic black holes in atomic BECs,” New J. Phys. 10, 103001 (2008) [arXiv:0803.0507 [cond-mat.other]]

    2008 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Non-local density correlations as signal of Hawking radiation in BEC acoustic black holes,

    R. Balbinot, A. Fabbri, S. Fagnocchi, A. Recati and I. Carusotto, “Non-local density correlations as signal of Hawking radiation in BEC acoustic black holes,” Phys. Rev. A 78, 021603 (2008) [arXiv:0711.4520 [cond- mat.other]]

    2008 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Simple analog of the black- hole information paradox in quantum Hall interfaces,

    K. K. W. Ma and K. Yang, “Simple analog of the black- hole information paradox in quantum Hall interfaces,” Phys. Rev. B 105 (2022) no.4, 045306 [arXiv:2106.11306 [cond-mat.mes-hall]]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    AnaBHEL (Analog Black Hole Evaporation via Lasers) Experiment: Concept, Design, and Status,

    P. Chen et al. [AnaBHEL], “AnaBHEL (Analog Black Hole Evaporation via Lasers) Experiment: Concept, Design, and Status,” Photon. 9 (2022) no.12, 1003 [arXiv:2205.12195 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Particle production by a relativi s- tic semitransparent mirror of finite size and thickness,

    K. N. Lin and P. Chen, “Particle production by a relativi s- tic semitransparent mirror of finite size and thickness,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.1, 53 (2024) [arXiv:2107.09033 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bogoliubov The- ory of acoustic Hawking radiation in Bose-Einstein Condensates,

    A. Recati, N. Pavloff and I. Carusotto, “Bogoliubov The- ory of acoustic Hawking radiation in Bose-Einstein Condensates,” Phys. Rev. A 80, 043603 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.80.043603 [arXiv:0907.4305 31 [cond-mat.quant-gas]]

    2009 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Quantum gravity as a communication resource,

    R. Howl, A. Akil, H. Kristjánsson, X. Zhao and G. Chiri- bella, “Quantum gravity as a communication resource,” [arXiv:2203.05861 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    Quantum Signatures of Black Hole Mass Superposi- tions,

    J. Foo, C. S. Arabaci, M. Zych and R. B. Mann, “Quantum Signatures of Black Hole Mass Superposi- tions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, no.18, 181301 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.181301 [arXiv:2111.13315 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Superpositions of thermalisations in relativistic quantum field theory,

    J. Foo and M. Zych, “Superpositions of thermalisations in relativistic quantum field theory,” Quantum 9, 1629 (2025) doi:10.22331/q-2025-02-11-1629 [arXiv:2307.02593 [quant-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Landau, L. D. and Lifshitz, E. M. Classical Field Theory . 4th ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1980

    1980

  58. [66]

    Nielsen and Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quan- tum Information, Cambridge, 2000

    2000

  59. [67]

    A Simple Derivation of Stimulated Emission by Black Holes,

    R. Sorkin, “A Simple Derivation of Stimulated Emission by Black Holes,” Class. Quant. Grav. 4, L149 (1987) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/4/4/014

    1987 doi

  60. [68]

    The Quantum Theory of Fields

    Weinberg S. The Quantum Theory of Fields. Cambridge University Press; 1995

    1995

  61. [69]

    Dennis Kretschmann, Dirk Schlingemann, and Reinhard F. Werner. A continuity theorem for Stinespring’s dila- tion. Journal of Functional Analysis , 255(8):1889–1904, 2008

    1904

  62. [70]

    Radmore, Methods in Theoretical Quantum Optics (Oxford, 2002; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Feb

    Barnett, Stephen M., and Paul M. Radmore, Methods in Theoretical Quantum Optics (Oxford, 2002; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Feb. 2010)

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.