Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Planckeons as mouths of quantum wormholes and holographic origin of spacetime

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that Planck-scale fluctuations, modeled as wormhole mouths on Ryu–Takayanagi surfaces, form a lattice-gas network whose thermodynamics reproduces Bekenstein–Hawking entropy and makes spacetime an emergent…

desk verdict Speculative ER=EPR-style model whose headline entropy result is assumed rather than derived, with a dimension mismatch in the area-scale equation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02804 v2 pith:4IOL4B2Q submitted 2025-05-05 gr-qc

Ignazio Licata , Fabrizio Tamburini , Davide Fiscaletti This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords planckeonsquantumwormholesER=EPRconjectureRyu-Takayanagientanglemententropyemergentspacetimegeneralizeduncertaintyprincipleblackholeremnantslatticegasthermodynamics
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

This paper argues that the Planck-scale vacuum fluctuations known as planckeons are the mouths of tiny non-traversable wormholes, sitting on the extremal surfaces that the Ryu–Takayanagi prescription uses to count entanglement. Treating those mouths as a lattice gas of occupied or empty cells, it derives an entanglement entropy whose area term reproduces the Bekenstein–Hawking value and whose high-temperature limit is a logarithmic, holographic entropy. At low temperature the same ensemble freezes into a sparse remnant-like phase, separated from the hot phase by a characteristic temperature set by the planckeon gap. If this picture holds, black-hole entropy, remnants, and the very connectivity of spacetime would all trace to entanglement among Planck-scale degrees of freedom, with no separate spacetime substrate required. The paper also embeds a minimal length in the wormhole throat to obtain a quantum-corrected Bekenstein entropy with explicit edge-mode corrections.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the planckeon lattice gas: a tessellation of the minimal Ryu–Takayanagi surface into $M=A/a_0$ cells, each either empty or occupied by a single wormhole mouth ($n_i\in\{0,1\}$). The grand-canonical partition function $Z=(1+e^{-x})^M$ carries the whole thermodynamics, and the matching condition $a_0=4l_{Pl}^2/\ln 2$ turns the area law into the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy. The interacting extension adds BCS-like pairing and density–density couplings, whose Bogoliubov quasiparticles have spectrum $E_q=\sqrt{(\varepsilon+J\lambda_q-\mu)^2+\Delta^2}$; combined with a power-law density of states $g(N)\sim N^s$, this spectrum produces the logarithmic high-temperature entropy and the crossover at $T_c=\alpha\gamma^2 M^2 T_{Pl}$ that becomes a genuine phase transition once interactions are included.

What would settle it

Derive the density of states $g(N)$ from an explicit dynamical model of the interacting planckeon Hamiltonian (21) and check whether it is a power law with $E(N)\propto N$; if it is not, the claimed $\ln(T/T_{Pl})$ entropy is not the actual large-temperature limit of the partition function. A direct lattice simulation of that Hamiltonian would also show whether a genuine phase transition exists at $T_c$ for finite pairing and interaction strengths, as opposed to the crossover seen in the free model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that planckeons are the Planck-scale edge quanta that make spacetime's entanglement structure explicit: each is a wormhole mouth crossing an extremal Ryu–Takayanagi surface, and the ensemble of mouths is what holography counts. The statistical mechanics of this ensemble is a lattice gas with one occupied or empty cell per Planck-area site. Its grand-canonical partition function $Z=(1+e^{-x})^M$, with $x=(\varepsilon-\mu)/k_B T$, gives an entropy per area that matches Bekenstein–Hawking once the cell area is $a_0=4l_{Pl}^2/\ln 2$; with interactions and pairing, the spectrum $E_q=\sqrt{(\varepsilon+J\lambda_q-\mu)^2+\Delta^2}$ and a power-law density of states $g(N)\sim N^s$ yield $S\simeq k_B(s+1)\ln(T/T_{Pl})$ at high temperature and a frozen remnant phase at low temperature. Embedding the minimal length in the wormhole throat produces a quantum-corrected Bekenstein entropy in which the area term is supplemented by edge-mode contributions. The paper presents this as a realization of ER=EPR and as evidence that spacetime is an entanglement-driven condensate rather than a fundamental manifold.

Load-bearing premise

The whole thermal story hangs on an assumed counting rule for how many planckeon states sit at each energy; if real Planck-scale dynamics gives a different counting rule, the logarithmic entropy and the frozen remnant phase do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bekenstein–Hawking entropy gets a microscopic counting: $S=A/4l_{Pl}^2$ arises from occupancy of Planck-area cells on the extremal surface, with calculable thermal corrections rather than an assumed spectrum.
  • At high temperature the planckeon network behaves holographically, with entropy growing only logarithmically with temperature, so the early universe's degrees of freedom obey a holographic bound.
  • At low temperature the network leaves a residual energy $E_0$ and a frozen sparse phase, giving a microscopic route to black-hole remnants and an effective cosmological constant $\Lambda_{\rm eff}\sim E_0/\hbar c l_{Pl}$.
  • The minimal-length wormhole metric yields a horizon condition and a remnant mass fixed by the same Planck-scale parameters, so compressing a planckeon lattice below its horizon forms a black hole with pre-black-hole quantum microstates.
  • The temperature $T_c$ separates a dense entangled wormhole gas from a frozen network; in the free edge-mode model this is a crossover, but with interactions it sharpens into a phase transition that could set the initial condition for inflation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper is right, the same lattice-gas counting should apply to any entangling surface, not only black-hole horizons; subleading corrections to entanglement entropy in ordinary holographic settings would then carry a characteristic Schottky-like heat-capacity signature.
  • The coefficients $\alpha,\gamma,M,s,\zeta$ are chosen to match Bekenstein–Hawking entropy; a sharper test would be to derive $g(N)$ directly from the wormhole metric and check whether it is genuinely a power law rather than an input.
  • The paper leaves the logarithmic-correction coefficient dependent on an unspecified edge-mode density $\rho(\lambda_q)$; computing $\rho(\lambda_q)$ from the network Laplacian would turn the log term into a quantitative prediction comparable with holographic entropy calculations.
  • Because $T_c$ is estimated far above the Planck temperature, one speculative consequence is that the planckeon network, not Planck-scale quantum gravity, sets the earliest thermal state of the universe; primordial gravitational-wave bounds could in principle constrain the crossover parameters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that Planck-scale vacuum fluctuations, called planckeons, are mouths of non-traversable wormholes on Ryu–Takayanagi surfaces, and that their statistics provides a holographic foundation for spacetime. The authors introduce a generalized uncertainty principle with a stochastic minimal length, define an entanglement entropy for a planckeon tessellation, and analyze a lattice-gas or BCS-like partition function. They claim a high-temperature logarithmic entropy consistent with holography and a low-temperature remnant phase, plus a quantum-corrected Bekenstein entropy from a wormhole metric with a minimal length. The text also connects the picture to ER=EPR, black-hole remnants, and an effective cosmological constant.

Significance. If the derivations were valid, the paper would offer a concrete microscopic route from Planck-scale wormhole mouths to black-hole entropy and emergent spacetime. Some ingredients are sound and clearly presented: the lattice-gas statistical mechanics of Eqs. (17)–(20) is standard, and the bit-thread identification of planckeons with edge quanta is a useful conceptual bridge. However, the central quantitative claims are not derived from the wormhole/RT construction: the logarithmic entropy follows from an assumed density of states, and the Bekenstein–Hawking matching is a choice of parameters. The significance is therefore almost entirely conditional on missing dynamical input, and in its present form the model does not yet make a falsifiable prediction that would distinguish it from other Planck-scale statistical frameworks.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eqs. (23)–(29)] The central holographic result, S ≈ k_B(s+1) ln(T/T_Pl), is not derived from the wormhole/RT construction or from the interacting partition function. Equation (23) is a finite product over modes, and for any finite set of modes its high-temperature entropy tends to a constant k_B Σ_q ln 2, not to a logarithmic divergence. The logarithmic behavior appears only after the replacement Z ≈ ∫ g(N) e^{-ηE(N)} dN with the assumed power-law density g(N) ~ N^s and the linear spectrum E(N) = αℏc N γ^2 M^2/l_Pl. No mapping is given from the mode index q or the Bogoliubov dispersion E_q of Eq. (22) to the occupation number N, and the spectral density ρ(λ_q) invoked in the text's own justification of the subleading log term is never specified. Thus the claimed holographic entropy and the remnant phase are properties of the ad hoc statistical input, not consequences of ER=EPR or Ryu–Takayanagi.
  2. [§3, Eqs. (17)–(20) and Eq. (40)] The matching to Bekenstein–Hawking entropy is enforced by parameter choice, and the two statements of the matching are mutually inconsistent. From Eq. (19), at half-filling x=0 one has S/A = k_B ln2 / a0, so matching S = A/(4l_Pl^2) requires a0 = 4 l_Pl^2 ln2, not a0 = 4 l_Pl^2/ln2 as stated below Eq. (20). Equation (40), by contrast, adds the Bekenstein–Hawking area term k_B c^3 A/(4Gℏ) independently and subtracts the half-filling lattice-gas term, so the area-law entropy is restored by construction for any a0. In both readings, the advertised 'natural' reproduction of the black-hole entropy is a normalization choice involving a0, ζ, or the separate area term, rather than a computed consequence of the planckeon cell area l0 of Eq. (38).
  3. [§2, Eq. (8)] The starting entanglement entropy of the planckeon ensemble is asserted rather than derived. Equation (8) is introduced with the phrase 'We can then assume', and the connection between the minimal-area tessellation (β γ^2 M^2 l_Pl/α)^2 and the Ryu–Takayanagi minimal surface is never established. The parameters β, γ, M, α, ζ, ε, μ, and s are free inputs, and no dynamical principle is provided that would determine them from a wormhole or edge-mode Hamiltonian. This leaves the framework unable, in its current form, to produce a falsifiable prediction or a controlled approximation to a known gravitational system.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Equation cross-references are unreliable: 'relations (4) and (5)' should be relations (3) and (4), 'metric (31)' should be the metric of Eq. (37), and 'equation (32) into equation (42)' in the text around Eq. (48) should refer to Eqs. (38) and (42).
  2. [§3, Eq. (36)] The quoted numerical value Tc ≈ 3×10^47 K and ratio Tc/T_Pl ≈ 2.11×10^15 are not reproducible from the text because no values are assigned to M, γ, and α; the manuscript itself notes this requirement but does not supply the numbers.
  3. [§3, Eqs. (21)–(23)] The discussion oscillates between a crossover and a phase transition without exhibiting an order parameter or a non-analytic thermodynamic function for the interacting model; the claim that pairing 'can sharpen' the transition is qualitative.
  4. [§3, Eq. (26)] The integral representation Z ≈ ∫ g(N)e^{-ηE(N)} dN and the use of Γ(s+1) require s > −1, but no restriction on the parameter s is stated.
  5. [Abstract and Introduction] There are numerous grammatical and typographical issues, including 'Planckeons are at all effects' and inconsistent hyphenation of 'Planck-scale'; the manuscript would benefit from careful copyediting.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Holographic log entropy is inserted via the assumed power-law density of states; BH matching is enforced by choosing a0; Planck-scale Einstein equations are imported from the authors' prior work.

  1. self definitional [Thermodynamics of the planckeons, Eqs. (24)-(29)]
    "A common assumption is a power-law form g(N ) ∼N s, where s is a parameter characterizing the system’s microstate degeneracy. When E(N ) = αℏcNγ 2M 2/lPl, then the partition function becomes ... S ≈kB(s + 1) ln(T/TP l) ... which shows a logarithmic dependence on the temperature characteristic of holographic systems."

    The advertised high-temperature logarithmic entropy is not a consequence of the finite-mode partition function Eq. (23), whose high-T limit gives a constant entropy, nor of the wormhole/RT construction. It appears only after the replacement Z≈∫g(N)e^{-ηE(N)}dN with an assumed power-law density g(N)~N^s and a linear spectrum E(N)=αℏcNγ²M²/l_Pl, both inserted by hand. No mapping from the mode index q to the occupation number N, or from the BCS dispersion Eq. (22) to E(N), is provided. The paper even admits the log coefficient is fixed only once ρ(λ_q) is specified, but ρ(λ_q) is never given. Thus Eqs. (28)-(29) are algebraic consequences of the assumed density of states and spectrum; the logarithmic 'holographic' entropy is an input, not a derived prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Thermodynamics of the planckeons, Eqs. (17)-(20) and Eq. (40)]
    "Choosing a0 = 4l2 Pl/ ln 2 yields the Bekenstein–Hawking valueS = A/(4l2 Pl) with calculable thermal corrections. ... At half filling ( x = 0) and with a0 = 4 l2 Pl ln 2, this expression reduces exactly to the Bekenstein–Hawking entropySA = kB c3/4Gℏ A."

    The Bekenstein-Hawking matching is enforced by the free cell-area parameter a0=ζl0², which the paper itself says is 'later fixed by a physical matching condition'. The lattice-gas entropy per area is k_B ln2/a0 at half-filling, so setting a0 to 4l_Pl²/ln2 (or 4l_Pl² ln2 in the later equation) forces the BH value. In Eq. (40), the correction term vanishes identically at x=0, leaving only the RT area term SA=A/(4G) that was assumed from the outset. The claimed reproduction of BH entropy is therefore by construction, not a calculated consequence of planckeon or wormhole dynamics.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Introduction and Section 2, Planck-scale validity of Einstein equations, ref. [4]]
    "Assuming the validity of Einstein’s equations up to the Planck scale as in [4] and using the ER = EPR conjecture, the activity of Planckeons shows the very complex structure of a tangle of quantum wormholes."

    The premise that Einstein's equations remain valid down to the Planck scale is load-bearing: it licenses the ER=EPR wormhole interpretation, the Ryu-Takayanagi entanglement entropy of Eq. (8), and the wormhole metric analysis. The sole support offered is reference [4], which is the authors' own prior paper (Tamburini & Licata, Entropy 2020). That prior work is not machine-checked, parameter-free, or externally falsified in the present paper, so the central premise is imported from the authors' own model rather than independently established. This is a load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper is transparent about some of its assumptions, but two of its headline results are built into the inputs rather than derived. The claimed holographic logarithmic entropy follows from an assumed power-law density of states g(N)~N^s and an assumed linear spectrum E(N)∝N; the finite product partition function of Eq. (23) would instead give a constant high-temperature entropy. The paper's own admission that the log coefficient is fixed only 'once ρ(λ_q) is specified'—with ρ never specified—confirms that the log result is a property of the statistical ansatz, not of the wormhole/RT construction. Similarly, the Bekenstein-Hawking matching is obtained by choosing the free tiling parameter a0 so that the half-filled lattice-gas entropy equals A/(4l_Pl²), and Eq. (40) reduces to the assumed RT area term at x=0. Additionally, the framework's premise that Einstein's equations hold at the Planck scale is supported by a citation to the authors' own prior work [4], making the self-citation load-bearing. These issues do not make every equation vacuous: the lattice-gas thermodynamics, mean-field BCS spectrum, and wormhole metric analysis are independent constructions. But the central 'derived' entropy results are partly forced by their inputs, warranting a score of 7 rather than a higher or lower value.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model has numerous free parameters (beta, gamma, M, s, zeta, epsilon, mu, lambda, g, rho). The central results are obtained by choosing these parameters to match BH entropy or to produce a desired log entropy, rather than by deriving them from a fundamental principle. The ER=EPR and RT frameworks are imported as axioms, and the planckeon premise itself comes from the authors' prior work.

free parameters (9)
  • beta = unknown/fluctuating
    Stochastic GUP deformation parameter; determines minimal length l0 = beta gamma^2 M^2 / alpha l_Pl (Eq. 38) and appears in every central entropy formula, but is never fixed.
  • gamma = unknown
    Dimensionless coupling defined in Eq. (2) as inverse ratio of gravitational to electromagnetic interaction; sets the energy scale Ek and Tc, but never assigned a value.
  • M = unknown
    Adimensional mass of virtual particles; appears in GUP, energies, and Tc. The paper notes numerical choices for M are needed to realize Tc ~ 3e47 K, but none are given.
  • s = unknown
    Exponent in the assumed density of states g(N) ~ N^s; directly controls the coefficient of the logarithmic entropy, S ~ (s+1) ln T, and is completely free.
  • zeta = effectively set by a0 = 4 l_Pl^2 / ln 2
    Introduced as a 'dimensionless proportionality factor' converting l0 to cell area; later fixed to match BH entropy, so it is a fitting knob.
  • epsilon = set equal to E0 = alpha gamma^2 M^2 E_Pl
    Single-site energy in the lattice-gas model; taken as the planckeon gap, which sets Tc by assumption.
  • mu = 0 or epsilon (half-filling)
    Chemical potential controlling occupancy; an adjustable knob that can be chosen to get exact BH entropy or other behavior.
  • lambda and g (or J) = unspecified
    Interaction and pairing strengths in the BCS-like Hamiltonian (Eq. 21); needed for a genuine phase transition, but no values or derivations are given.
  • rho(lambda_q) = unspecified
    Edge-mode spectral density; the paper says it fixes the subleading log term 'once rho(lambda_q) is specified', but it is never specified.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Einstein equations hold down to the Planck scale
    Assumed following [4] (same authors) to interpret vacuum fluctuations as wormholes; load-bearing for the ER=EPR step.
  • domain assumption ER=EPR conjecture
    Assumed as the framework connecting wormholes and entanglement; not derived within the paper.
  • domain assumption Ryu-Takayanagi formula applies to the planckeon tiling
    The RT entropy (Eq. 6) is imported from AdS/CFT and asserted to hold for the planckeon network without further justification.
  • ad hoc to paper Power-law density of states g(N) ~ N^s
    No derivation or external basis is provided; this is the key input that produces the logarithmic entropy claim.
  • ad hoc to paper Specific GUP with minimal length and time (Eqs. 3-4)
    The particular GUP form with beta, gamma, M is postulated; it determines l0 and all subsequent scales.
  • domain assumption Thermal equilibrium of the planckeon network
    The ensemble is assumed to be canonical with eta = 1/(k_B T); no dynamical reason for equilibration is given.
invented entities (2)
  • planckeons
    purpose: Fundamental Planck-scale fluctuations acting as wormhole mouths that build spacetime.
    No falsifiable prediction outside the model; qualitative suggestions about dark matter or vacuum energy are not quantified.
  • wormhole mouth crossings (edge quanta)
    purpose: Degrees of freedom on RT surfaces that encode entanglement and produce the area law.
    These are identified with planckeons in the model and have no external handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Planckeons as mouths of quantum wormholes and holographic origin of spacetime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4IOL4B2Q

@misc{pith2026250502804,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Planckeons as mouths of quantum wormholes and holographic origin of spacetime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4IOL4B2Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02804}
}
abstract

We argue that Planck-scale fluctuations ``planckeons'' realize a network of non-traversable Einstein--Rosen bridges and act as holographic devices. Modeling planckeons as wormhole mouths on extremal (RT) surfaces ties spacetime connectivity directly to entanglement. Using the Ryu--Takayanagi framework, we derive an entanglement entropy that governs the thermodynamics of the planckeon ensemble. The resulting partition function exhibits a high-temperature logarithmic entropy consistent with holographic scaling, while at low temperature the network freezes into a sparse remnant-like phase. A characteristic temperature $T_c$ (set by the planckeon gap) separates these regimes; in the noninteracting edge-mode description this marks a crossover (and becomes a genuine phase transition once interactions/pairing are included). Embedding a minimal length in the wormhole throat yields a quantum-corrected Bekenstein entropy in which the area term is supplemented by edge-mode contributions, thereby linking wormhole geometry with quantum-information flow and suggesting a holographic origin of spacetime and black-hole microstructure.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gravitational vacuum hypothesis and cosmology with variable particle number

    K.P. Staniukovich, V.N. Melnikov and K.A. Bronnikov, “Gravitational vacuum hypothesis and cosmology with variable particle number”, International Journal of The- oretical Physics 20, 831-841 (1981)

    work page 1981

  2. [2]

    (41) with umin =l0 (throat). In this process, the proper radial length l on a constant-time slice is expressed as l = ± ∫ ±∞ umin du±√ ( 1 − l2 0 u2 ± ) f (u±) , (42) where f (u±) = 1 − 2GγMM Pl √αc 2u± + 2GγMM Pll2 0√αc 2u3 ± , (43) The corresponding ADM mass is m∞ = γM √α MPl = 3 √ 3 4 c2 G l0 = 3 √ 3 4 l0 ℓPl MPl. With l0 = βγ 2M 2 α ℓPl, this be- come...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Cool Horizons for entan- gled black holes

    J. Maldacena and L. Susskind, “Cool Horizons for entan- gled black holes”, Fortschritte der Physik 61, 9, 781-811 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    worm- hole gas

    (46) This regime marks the onset of a black-hole exterior in the two-sheet geometry. Real roots exist iff ⏐ ⏐ ⏐GγMM Pl √αc 2 ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ≤ 3 √ 3 4 l0. (47) This bound determines whether the two-sheet geometry admits horizons; exceeding the upper threshold leads to a black-hole domain. Equations 46 – 47 can be seen as representing a critical zone where the non-lo...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Wheeler, “Geons”, Physical Review 97, 2, 511-536 (1955)

    J.A. Wheeler, “Geons”, Physical Review 97, 2, 511-536 (1955)

    work page 1955

  6. [6]

    The algebraic structure of the general- ized uncertainty principle

    M. Maggiore, “The algebraic structure of the general- ized uncertainty principle”, Physics Letters B 319, 83-86 (1993)

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    General Relativistic Worm- hole Connections from Planck-Scales and the ER = EPR Conjecture

    F. Tamburini and I. Licata, “General Relativistic Worm- hole Connections from Planck-Scales and the ER = EPR Conjecture”, Entropy 22, 1, 3 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Copenhagen vs Everett, Teleportation, an d ER = EPR

    L. Susskind, “Copenhagen vs Everett, Teleportation, an d ER = EPR”, Fortschr. Phys. 64, 551–564 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    On gravity and the un- certainty principle

    R.J. Adler and D.I. Santiago, “On gravity and the un- certainty principle”, Modern Physics Letters A 14, 1371- 1381 (1999)

    1999

  2. [10]

    Hilbert space representation of the minimal length uncertainty rela- tion

    A. Kempf, G. Mangano and R.B. Mann, “Hilbert space representation of the minimal length uncertainty rela- tion”, Physical Review D 52, 2, 1108-1118 (1995)

    1995

  3. [11]

    Generalized uncertainty principle in qu an- tum gravity from micro-black hole gedanken experi- ment

    F. Scardigli, “Generalized uncertainty principle in qu an- tum gravity from micro-black hole gedanken experi- ment”, Physics Letters B 452, 39-44 (1999)

    1999

  4. [12]

    Horizon wave function for single localized particles: GUP and quantum black-hole decay

    R. Casadio and F. Scardigli, “Horizon wave function for single localized particles: GUP and quantum black-hole decay”, European Journal of Physics C 74, 2685 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    General - ized uncertainty principle from quantum geometry

    S. Capozziello, G. Lambiase and G. Scarpetta, “General - ized uncertainty principle from quantum geometry”, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 39, 15-22 (2000)

    2000

  6. [14]

    Minimal length scale scenarios for quantum gravity

    S. Hossenfelder, “Minimal length scale scenarios for quantum gravity”, Living Reviews in Relativity 16, 2 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    On a Crucial Role of Gravity in the Formation of Elementary Particles

    A. Alharthy and V.V. Kassandrov, “On a Crucial Role of Gravity in the Formation of Elementary Particles”, Universe 6, 11, 193 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Quantum gravita- tional decoherence from fluctuating minimal length and deformation parameter at the Planck scale

    L. Petruzziello and F. Illuminati, “Quantum gravita- tional decoherence from fluctuating minimal length and deformation parameter at the Planck scale”, Nature Communications 12, 4449 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Primordial black holes and quantum effects

    B. Carr, “Primordial black holes and quantum effects”, i n 1st Karl Schwarzschild Meeting on Gravitational Physics, eds. P. Nicolini, M. Kaminski, J. Mureika, M. Bleicher, 22-31, Springer, Berlin (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Physical Review Letters 96, 18, 181602 (2006)

    Ryu, Shinsei; Takayanagi, Tadashi, ”Holographic Deri va- tion of Entanglement Entropy from AdS/CFT”. Physical Review Letters 96, 18, 181602 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    Spacetime foam

    S.W. Hawking, “Spacetime foam”, Nuclear Physics B 144, 2-3, 349-362 (1978)

    1978

  12. [20]

    Quantum gravity phenomenol- ogy

    G. Amelino-Camelia, “Quantum gravity phenomenol- ogy”, arXiv:0806.0339 (2008)

    2008 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Probing the connection between entangled par - ticles and wormholes in general relativity

    B. Kain, “Probing the connection between entangled par - ticles and wormholes in general relativity”, Physical Re- view Letters 131, 101001 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Hubeny, Veronika E.; Rangamani, Mukund; Takayanagi, Tadashi, ”A Covariant Holographic Entanglement En- tropy Proposal”, Journal of High Energy Physics 2007, 7, 062 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    Quantumness of Relics Graviton

    M.Giovannini, “Quantumness of Relics Graviton”, Phys - ical Review D 110, 123520 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    and Lawrence, M., Bit threads and holographic entanglement, JHEP 08, 066 (2016), doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)066, arXiv:1604.00354 [hep-th]

    Freedman, M., Headrick M. and Lawrence, M., Bit threads and holographic entanglement, JHEP 08, 066 (2016), doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)066, arXiv:1604.00354 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Wormhole and Entanglement (Non-) Detection in the ER=EPR Cor- respondence

    N. Bao, J. Pollack, and G. N. Remmen, “Wormhole and Entanglement (Non-) Detection in the ER=EPR Cor- respondence”, Journal of High Energy Physics 11, 126 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Entanglement Conservation, ER=EPR, and a New Classical Area The- orem for Wormholes

    G. N. Remmen, N. Bao, and J. Pollack, “Entanglement Conservation, ER=EPR, and a New Classical Area The- orem for Wormholes”, Journal of High Energy Physics 07 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Vasileiou, J

    V. Vasileiou, J. Granot, T. Piran and G. Amelino- Camelia, ”A Planck-scale limit on spacetime fuzziness and stochastic Lorentz invariance violation”, Nature Physics 11 ,4, 344–346 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    The four laws of black hole mechanics

    J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter and S.W. Hawking, “The four laws of black hole mechanics”, Communications in Math- ematical Physics 31, 2, 161-170 (1973)

    1973

  21. [29]

    Black holes and entropy

    J. D. Bekenstein, “Black holes and entropy”, Physical Review D 7, 8, 19 (1973)

    1973

  22. [30]

    Non- Perturbative String Theory from AdS/CFT

    R. DE Mello Koch, E. Gandote and J.-H. Huang, “Non- Perturbative String Theory from AdS/CFT”, Journal of 12 High Energy Physics 169 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    An En- tangled Universe

    P. Tejerina-P´ erez, D. Bertacca and R. Jimenez, “An En- tangled Universe”, 2403.15742 [astro-ph.CO] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Stringy ER=EPR

    D. L. Jafferis and E. Schneider, “Stringy ER=EPR”, Journal of High Energy Physics 195 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Einstein- Rosen bridge from the minimal length

    K. Jusufi, E. Moulay, J. Mureika and A.F. Ali, “Einstein- Rosen bridge from the minimal length”, European Phys- ical Journal C 83, 282 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Microscopic wormholes and the geometry of entanglement

    F.S.N. Lobo, “Microscopic wormholes and the geometry of entanglement”, European Physical Journal C 74, 2024 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Lobo (eds), Wormholes, Warp Drives and Energy Con- dition, Springer, Berlin (2017)

    F. Lobo (eds), Wormholes, Warp Drives and Energy Con- dition, Springer, Berlin (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Is Planckian dis- creteness observable in cosmology?

    G. Bengochea, G. Leon and A. Perez, “Is Planckian dis- creteness observable in cosmology?”, arXiv:2405.12534v1 [gr-qc] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Quantum mechanics interpretation on Planc k scale

    I. Licata, “Quantum mechanics interpretation on Planc k scale”, Ukrainian journal of physics 65 (1), 17-30 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    On the Apparent Discretiza- tion of Spacetime and Its Connection with the Cosmo- logical Constant

    J. Gin` e and G.G. Luciano, “On the Apparent Discretiza- tion of Spacetime and Its Connection with the Cosmo- logical Constant”, Universe 10 (3), 142 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Dark matter from higher dimensional primordial black holes

    A. Friedlander, N. Song and A.C. Vincent, “Dark matter from higher dimensional primordial black holes”, Physi- cal Review D 108, 043523 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Dark matter from hot big bang black holes

    A. Friedlander, N. Song and A.C. Vincent, “Dark matter from hot big bang black holes”, Physical Review D 108, L081301 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Dark matter as Planck relics without too exotic hy- potheses

    A. Barrau, K. Martineau, F. Moulin and J.-F. Ngono, “Dark matter as Planck relics without too exotic hy- potheses”, Physical Review D 100, 123505 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Van Raamsdonk, ”Building up spacetime with quan- tum entanglement”, General Relativity and Gravitation 42 (10): 2323–2329 (2010)

    M. Van Raamsdonk, ”Building up spacetime with quan- tum entanglement”, General Relativity and Gravitation 42 (10): 2323–2329 (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    Fiscaletti and Licata, “Scales and hierarchies: Planc k- ian signature in Standard Model, Particles 7, 2, 435-464 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Thinking Non Locally: The Atemporal Roots of Particle Physics

    L. Chiatti, “Thinking Non Locally: The Atemporal Roots of Particle Physics”, Frontiers in Physics 6 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Relative entropy equals bulk relative entropy

    D. L. Jafferis, A. Lewkowycz, J. Maldacena, and S. J. Suh, “Relative entropy equals bulk relative entropy”, JHEP 06 (2016) 004; arXiv:1512.06431

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Local subsystems in gauge theory and gravity

    W. Donnelly and L. Freidel, “Local subsystems in gauge theory and gravity”, JHEP 09 (2016) 102; arXiv:1601.04744

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Local phase space and edge modes for diffeomorphism-invariant theories

    A. J. Speranza, “Local phase space and edge modes for diffeomorphism-invariant theories”, JHEP 10 (2018) 047; arXiv:1706.05061

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Emergent Holographic Spacetime from Quantum Information

    T. Takayanagi, “Emergent Holographic Spacetime from Quantum Information”, arXiv:2506.06595 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Quan- tum corrections to holographic entanglement entropy

    T. Faulkner, A. Lewkowycz and J. Maldacena, “Quan- tum corrections to holographic entanglement entropy”, JHEP 11 (2013) 074; arXiv:1307.2892

    2013 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Eternal traversable worm- hole

    J. Maldacena and X.-L. Qi, “Eternal traversable worm- hole”, arXiv:1804.00491 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Quantum gravity as a Fermi liquid

    S. H. S. Alexander and G. Calcagni, “Quantum gravity as a Fermi liquid”, Phys. Lett. B 672 (2009) 386–389; arXiv:0807.0225

    2009 arXiv

  44. [1015]

    For reproducibility, one should specify the numerical choices for M (in the adimensional normalization used in the paper) and γ that realize this value

    corresponds to αγ 2M 2 ≈ 2.11 × 1015. For reproducibility, one should specify the numerical choices for M (in the adimensional normalization used in the paper) and γ that realize this value. With the known physical constants values, with M the adimensional mass relative to Pla...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.