Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Quantum circuit simulation of black hole evaporation and Maxwell demon interpretation

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a Maxwell demon inside a black hole, using an Einstein-Rosen bridge, can simulate Hawking radiation entanglement while paying an erasure cost of two bits per pair that sums to the black hole's entropy.

desk verdict A well-written toy model whose central circuit cannot generate the entanglement it claims, and whose demon communication assumes the ER=EPR mechanism it purports to illuminate. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23226 v1 pith:KIBWVNMC submitted 2025-05-29 gr-qc

H. Hadi , Amin Rezaei Akbarieh , Emmanuel N. Saridakis This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords blackholeevaporationquantumcircuitsimulationMaxwelldemonER=EPRcorrespondenceAMPSparadoxmonogamyofentanglementLandauer'sprincipleHawkingradiation
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 black hole evaporation can be modeled as a quantum circuit run by a Maxwell demon inside the horizon, acting as a measurement-and-feedback agent. The demon learns an external observer's measurement basis through entanglement, sends the outcome through an Einstein-Rosen bridge to a distant observer near the early Hawking radiation, and rotates that observer's qubit so the near-horizon mode and the early radiation look entangled. Because the interior state becomes a map of the early radiation, the late mode's entanglement with both the interior and the early radiation no longer violates monogamy. The paper further claims that each simulated pair requires erasing two bits, dissipating at least $2kT\ln 2$, and that the cumulative dissipation over all pairs is of order the black hole's entropy. If these claims hold, the model gives a concrete information-theoretic and thermodynamic mechanism for the ER=EPR correspondence without a firewall.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a small quantum circuit (the paper's Fig. 2) with qubits for the near-horizon mode B, the exterior observer's measurement-basis generator, the demon's two ancillas, and the early-radiation qubit RB. Two entanglements feed the protocol: the demon's ancilla is CNOT-entangled with the exterior basis generator, letting the demon predict the X/Z measurement, while the demon's second ancilla carries a random choice. A three-qubit control-control-U gate then rotates the early-radiation qubit into the eigenstate of the predicted basis, reproducing the steering that creates the B–RB correlation. After each run the two demon ancillas must be reset to the ground state, which is the information-erasure step that costs $2kT\ln 2$ and, repeated over all pairs, yields the black-hole entropy.

What would settle it

Run the paper's Fig. 2 circuit on a quantum simulator with the wormhole channel replaced by a plain classical bit or removed entirely, and check whether the final state between the near-horizon qubit and the early-radiation qubit still matches the target entangled state; if the same fidelity is reached, the wormhole is not load-bearing. Alternatively, measure the heat released when the demon's two ancilla qubits are reset per iteration in a small quantum-optical analogue of black hole radiation and compare it to $2kT\ln 2$; a consistent mismatch would undermine the Landauer accounting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a Maxwell demon inside an old black hole can use an Einstein-Rosen bridge, in the sense of the ER=EPR correspondence, to simulate the entangled pair between the near-horizon mode B and the early Hawking radiation RB. The demon entangles its own ancilla with an exterior observer's measurement-basis generator, learns which of the X or Z bases the observer will use, sends that information together with its own measurement result through the wormhole to a distant observer, and rotates the distant observer's qubit into the corresponding eigenstate. The resulting B–RB state reproduces the required entanglement, while the interior state A is treated as a map of RB, so monogamy is preserved and the firewall alternative is avoided. Thermodynamically, resetting the demon's two ancilla qubits after each run erases two bits and dissipates at least $2kT\ln 2$ per pair; summing over all pairs gives a total energy of order the black hole's entropy.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that a demon inside the event horizon can send its measurement results to an outside observer through a wormhole (Einstein-Rosen bridge) connecting the black hole to the early radiation; without that shortcut the procedure is only local operations and classical communication and cannot create the B–RB entanglement the paper claims to simulate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The AMPS/firewall contradiction disappears: the interior state A is interpreted as a map of the early radiation RB, so B's entanglement with both A and RB no longer violates monogamy.
  • The circuit assigns a definite thermodynamic price to each Hawking pair: at least $2kT\ln 2$ of dissipated heat, with the total after all pairs comparable to the black hole's entropy.
  • Exterior observers see only local operations and classical communication; the nonlocal correlations are hidden behind the horizon by the wormhole geometry.
  • The model provides a concrete information-processing role for ER=EPR: the wormhole carries the measurement outcomes that let the demon steer external qubits, offering a mechanism for unitarity without firewalls.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the circuit is structurally an EPR-steering protocol, so replacing the wormhole with any entanglement-assisted no-signalling channel should yield the same simulated correlations, generalizing the mechanism beyond black-hole spacetimes.
  • Editorial inference: the $2kT\ln 2$ per pair is a lower bound; if real resets are not near-optimal, cumulative dissipation would exceed the black-hole entropy, which the model implicitly rules out.
  • Editorial inference: the point where cumulative erasure heat becomes comparable to the remaining black-hole entropy marks a natural halfway point of evaporation that could be compared with radiation-entropy curves.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a quantum circuit model in which a Maxwell demon inside a black hole assists in simulating the entanglement between the near-horizon late radiation B and the early Hawking radiation RB. The model claims to avoid the AMPS paradox through ER=EPR, using the Einstein-Rosen bridge as a communication channel between the demon and an outside observer (Charlie), and claims a thermodynamic cost of the demon's operations (Landauer erasure of 2 bits per iteration) whose cumulative effect is comparable to the black hole entropy. The abstract further states that the demon can 'mediate via Einstein-Rosen bridges' to transfer quantum information across the horizon without violating monogamy of entanglement.

Significance. The idea of connecting quantum circuit models and Maxwell-demon thermodynamics to black hole evaporation is timely, and the paper compiles a useful bibliography on ER=EPR and related toy models. The paper also states a concrete Landauer bound per run, which could serve as a starting point for a quantitative analysis. However, the central claims are not established: the circuit as defined does not generate the claimed entangled state, the ER-bridge communication is assumed rather than derived, and the entropy scaling is asserted without a quantitative calculation. The paper therefore does not presently provide a sound contribution to the literature, despite addressing an important set of questions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A, Eqs. (5)-(7)] The circuit as written does not generate the entangled state claimed in Eq. (7). After Bob measures q2 and q1 and the demon measures q4, the controlled-U gate operates on classical bits and acts only on q5; tracing the initial state |Φ+>_14 ⊗ |Φ+>_23 ⊗ |0>_5 through these steps yields a product state |s>_1|s>_5 (up to a local rotation), not an entangled state. Equation (7) postulates ρ = p|ψ>_15<ψ| + (1−p)|0>_1<0|⊗|0>_5<0| without deriving it from the circuit, so the key step is assumed, not demonstrated. This undermines the central claim of reproducing the B–RB entanglement.
  2. [Section II, paragraph beginning 'However, it is important to recall...'] The protocol explicitly assumes the demon can send information to Charlie outside the horizon through an Einstein-Rosen bridge, with the sentence 'if we restrict the model to the ER=EPR correspondence, this information can be transmitted through the Einstein-Rosen bridge.' This is precisely the hypothesis the paper aims to validate; using it as an input makes the argument circular. If the ER bridge is not a functioning channel, the operations reduce to local operations and classical communication, which cannot produce the B–RB entanglement that the Conclusions claim.
  3. [Section III.B] The thermodynamic claim is not derived. The paper computes 2 kT ln 2 per run for resetting q3 and q4, but the statement 'By repeating this process for all entanglement pairs, the demon distills all entanglement pairs and introduces an amount of energy to the system comparable to the entropy of the black hole' requires an explicit count of runs and a relation between kT ln 2, the number of qubits, and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy; none appears in the manuscript. The parameter p in Eq. (7) is introduced without a thermodynamic interpretation, leaving the central energy claim as an assertion.
  4. [Section II, Eq. (1)] The mapping |n>_RB → |n>_A resolves the monogamy conflict by definition rather than by a physical mechanism. If A is merely a relabeling of RB, then B's entanglement with A is the same as B's entanglement with RB, so there is no independent interior mode; the paper does not address how this identification is compatible with a smooth horizon for infalling observers, which is the actual content of the AMPS paradox. The resolution is therefore not demonstrated.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section III.A, Eqs. (5)-(6)] Equations (5) and (6) are identical even though they are claimed to describe different cases (q3=0 and q3=1), and the definition of |q>_4 differs between them in a way inconsistent with the text; this makes the controlled rotation ambiguous.
  2. [Section III.A] The paper does not provide a worked example of the circuit; a concrete density-matrix calculation for one measurement setting would clarify whether any entanglement survives and would make the protocol reproducible.
  3. [Section III.A] The description of the demon measuring q4 'before Bob measures his qubit q1' is not reflected in a time-ordered circuit diagram; the text and the figure should agree on the sequence of operations.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The central results are inputs in disguise: the wormhole channel is assumed and then cited as support for ER=EPR, the entangled B–RB state is inserted by hand in Eq. (7), and the S_BH dissipation claim is a bit-counting identity.

  1. self definitional [Section II, paragraph beginning 'However, it is important to recall that the demon is inside the black hole...'; Conclusions]
    "However, it is important to recall that the demon is inside the black hole and thus it cannot send information to the outside. Nevertheless, if we restrict the model to the ER=EPR correspondence, this information can be transmitted through the Einstein-Rosen bridge."

    The protocol's load-bearing step is the demon sending its measurement outcome to Charlie through the wormhole; the paper explicitly admits this step exists only if the ER bridge is an information channel ('if we restrict the model to the ER=EPR correspondence, this information can be transmitted'). The Conclusions then present this assumed mechanism as a derived result: 'This supports the view that spacetime entanglement, as captured in the ER=EPR conjecture, can be applied as the underlying mechanism...' The conclusion (ER=EPR enables transfer of quantum information across the horizon) is exactly the premise required to run the simulation; nothing in the circuit supplies the bridge's transmissibility, so the claimed demonstration is equivalent to its input assumption.

  2. self definitional [Section III.A, Eqs. (5)-(7); Conclusions]
    "The simulation of the entangled B and RB states, which are detected by Bob and Charlie in the black hole, respectively, through a Maxwell demon participating in a quantum circuit and operating with a probability p for each iteration, is represented by ρ = p|ψ⟩15⟨ψ| + (1 − p)|0⟩1⟨0| ⊗ |0⟩5⟨0|, (7) where |ψ⟩15 is an entangled state of two qubits RB and B."

    The paper's headline claim is that the framework 'reproduces the entanglement structure between the near-horizon modes and the early Hawking radiation' (Conclusions). But this structure is never produced by the circuit: in Eqs. (5)-(6) the controlled gate acts only on q5, conditioned on the classical bits q3 and q4, so no unitary couples q1 to q5 and the post-measurement state of (q1, q5) is a product of correlated outcomes, not an entangled state. The entangled |ψ⟩15 is simply declared in Eq. (7) to represent the simulation. Hence the claimed output (entanglement between B and RB) is an input assumption inserted into the output formula; result and premise coincide by construction.

1 more flagged steps
  1. renaming known result [Section II, final paragraph; Conclusions]
    "Since the demon performs two measurements in every run, it introduces 2 kT ln(2) of energy into the environment inside the black hole. In other words, in every run it distills one entanglement pair and introduces an amount of energy comparable to the entropy of one of the entangled pairs. By repeating this process for all entanglement pairs, the demon distills all entanglement pairs and introduces an amount of energy to the system comparable to the entropy of the black hole."

    Section II fixes the per-run cost as 2 kT ln(2) for two erased bits and identifies each run with distillation of one entangled pair; the Conclusions claim 'The cumulative effect of this energy dissipation is of the order of the black hole's entropy, connecting the quantum circuit description to the macroscopic evaporation process.' Because the number of pairs is taken to be the black hole entropy in bits, the per-bit Landauer cost times the number of bits reproduces S_BH by construction. The 'connection' to macroscopic evaporation is therefore an identity built into the bookkeeping (Landauer's principle applied to the model's own pair count), not a prediction emerging from black-hole dynamics.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. The protocol is: (i) the demon learns Bob's measurement basis via the entangled q2–q3 pair, (ii) measures q4 to learn the outcome before Bob, (iii) transmits the two classical bits to Charlie through an Einstein–Rosen bridge, and (iv) the Conclusions present the protocol as reproducing the B–RB entanglement structure and as supporting ER=EPR. Three load-bearing steps reduce to their own inputs. (1) The only nonlocal element of the protocol is the wormhole transmission, and Section II states it exists only 'if we restrict the model to the ER=EPR correspondence'; the Conclusions then claim the model 'supports the view that spacetime entanglement, as captured in the ER=EPR conjecture, can be applied as the underlying mechanism.' The supporting conclusion is exactly the premise required to run the simulation. (2) The entangled B–RB state is not an output of the circuit: Eqs. (5)–(6) have the controlled gate acting only on q5 under classical controls, so the final (q1, q5) state is separable and only classically correlated; the entangled |ψ⟩15 is inserted directly into the output by Eq. (7), so the claimed reproduction of entanglement is assumed, not derived. (3) The claim that cumulative dissipation is of order S_BH is a counting identity (per-bit Landauer cost times the number of bits equals the entropy by definition). There is genuine non-circular content — the circuit is explicitly drawn, and Section III.C honestly notes EPR steering can be replicated by local operations and classical communication — and no load-bearing self-citation occurs (the one author self-citation, ref. [44], is background). But the central claims are forced by the assumed wormhole channel and the hand-inserted entangled state, so the circularity is definitional at the core rather than a minor self-citation issue; the circularity score is 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The ledger shows that the central claim rests on a chain of assumed physics: the Page-curve entanglement structure of an old black hole, the applicability of Landauer's principle inside the horizon, and especially the assumption that a demon inside the horizon can use an Einstein-Rosen bridge as a communication channel. The last is both an axiom and the conclusion the paper tries to motivate, which is the main circularity. There are no fitted constants; the parameters p and m and the undefined temperature T are introduced without physical determination.

free parameters (2)
  • p = unspecified (0 to 1)
    Mixture parameter in Eq. (7) representing the probability that the demon operates per iteration; introduced ad hoc, no value or physical determination given.
  • m = 2
    Number of measurement settings, chosen as 2 (Pauli X and Z); no justification beyond the simplest case.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Old black hole has emitted half its radiation; late radiation B is maximally entangled with early radiation RB and with interior A (Page argument).
    Assumed in Section II based on refs [4,5]; required for the AMPS paradox setup.
  • ad hoc to paper ER=EPR: quantum entanglement corresponds to Einstein-Rosen bridges, and information can be transmitted through these bridges.
    Invoked in Sections II and III to let the demon communicate with Charlie through a wormhole; this is the very mechanism the paper aims to support, introducing circularity.
  • ad hoc to paper The mapping |n>_RB -> |n>_A (Eq. 1) defines interior modes as the same states as early radiation, avoiding monogamy violation by construction.
    Postulated in Section II; it assumes the resolution rather than deriving it.
  • domain assumption Monogamy of entanglement and Landauer's erasure principle hold in the black hole interior.
    Standard quantum information results used to derive the erasure cost; assumed to apply unchanged in the gravitational setting.
  • domain assumption The outside region B and inside region A are entangled, and the demon can share entanglement with Bob's randomness generator.
    Assumed structure of the near-horizon vacuum, Section II.
invented entities (2)
  • Maxwell demon operating inside the event horizon
    purpose: Performs measurements, shares entanglement with Bob's devices, and sends steering information to Charlie through the wormhole to simulate B-RB entanglement.
    No physical mechanism or evidence is given for a demon inside a black hole; it is introduced to make the circuit work.
  • Traversable Einstein-Rosen bridge communication channel
    purpose: Carries classical measurement outcomes from the demon inside the horizon to Charlie outside, enabling nonlocal correlations.
    The paper relies on ER bridges transmitting information, whereas the status of traversable wormholes in this context is speculative and being tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum circuit simulation of black hole evaporation and Maxwell demon interpretation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KIBWVNMC

@misc{pith2026250523226,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum circuit simulation of black hole evaporation and Maxwell demon interpretation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KIBWVNMC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23226}
}
read the original abstract

We suggest a quantum circuit model which simulates the black-hole evaporation process. In particular, Almheiri-Marolf-Polchinski-Sully (AMPS) paradox and the ER=EPR correspondence are reconsidered regarding our proposed model, which assumes a Maxwell's demon operating within a black hole interior. In other words, we form a quantum circuit, mimicking the behavior of the entanglement structure of the near-horizon region and the early Hawking radiation located far from the black hole. Furthermore, we indicate how the demon, by applying nonlocal correlations, can mediate via Einstein-Rosen bridges for the purpose of simulating the transfer of quantum information across the horizon without violating the monogamy of entanglement. Finally, the thermodynamic cost of the demon's operations regarding Landauer's principle is analyzed. This indicates that the information erasure has an energy comparable to the black hole entropy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23226 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. , at the start of the process, q3 of the demon becomes entangled with q2 through a Control-NOT gate, and therefore their state becomes |ψ⟩23 = 1 √ 2 (|0⟩2|0⟩3 + |1⟩2|1⟩3). (4) After Bob measures his state q2, causing the collapse of the state |ψ⟩23, the demon can identify q3 as the same state as q2. This implies that the demon gains immediate knowledge of Bob’s basis information. Subsequently, the demon measures qub… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Chaotic imprints of dark matter in extreme mass-ratio inspirals

    gr-qc 2026-02 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A toy model shows that adding a hand-made angle-dependent force to dark-matter spacetimes produces visual chaos and irregular numerical-Kludge waveforms, but the force is not a realistic dark-matter perturbation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Almheiri, D

    A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski and J. Sully, JHEP 02, 062 (2013) [arXiv:1207.3123 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    Susskind, Fortsch

    L. Susskind, Fortsch. Phys. 64, 72-83 (2016) [arXiv:1412.8483 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Almheiri, D

    A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski, D. Stanford and J. Sully, JHEP 09, 018 (2013) [arXiv:1304.6483 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1291-1294 (1993) [arXiv:gr-qc/9305007 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 1993

  5. [5]

    D. N. Page, [arXiv:hep-th/9305040 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    B. M. Terhal, IBM Journal of Research and Development 48, 71-78 (2004) [arXiv:quant-ph/0307120 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    Koashi and A

    M. Koashi and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. A 69, 022309 (2004) [arXiv:quant-ph/0310037 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    Maldacena and L

    J. Maldacena and L. Susskind, Fortsch. Phys. 61, 781-811 (2013) [arXiv:1306.0533 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2013

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Israel, Phys

    W. Israel, Phys. Lett. A 57, 107-110 (1976)

    1976

  2. [10]

    J. M. Maldacena, JHEP 04, 021 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0106112 [hep-th]]

    2003 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Lloyd and J

    S. Lloyd and J. Preskill, JHEP 08, 126 (2014) [arXiv:1308.4209 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    S. B. Giddings, Phys. Rev. D 74, 106005 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0605196 [hep-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  5. [13]

    S. B. Giddings, Phys. Rev. D 74, 106009 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0606146 [hep-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  6. [14]

    S. B. Giddings, Phys. Rev. D 76, 064027 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0703116 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  7. [15]

    S. B. Giddings, information problem,” Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 025002 (2011) [arXiv:0911.3395 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    S. B. Giddings, Phys. Rev. D 85, 044038 (2012) [arXiv:1108.2015 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  9. [17]

    S. B. Giddings, Phys. Rev. D 85, 124063 (2012) [arXiv:1201.1037 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    S. B. Giddings and Y. Shi, Phys. Rev. D 87, no.6, 064031 (2013) [arXiv:1205.4732 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

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

    2013 arXiv

  12. [20]

    S. B. Giddings, Phys. Rev. D 88, no.2, 024018 (2013) [arXiv:1302.2613 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    S. B. Giddings, Phys. Today 66, no.4, 30-35 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    S. B. Giddings and Y. Shi, Phys. Rev. D 89, no.12, 124032 (2014) [arXiv:1310.5700 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    S. B. Giddings, Phys. Lett. B 738, 92-96 (2014) [arXiv:1401.5804 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    S. B. Giddings, Phys. Rev. D 90, no.12, 124033 (2014) [arXiv:1406.7001 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    S. B. Giddings, Phys. Lett. B 754, 39-42 (2016) [arXiv:1511.08221 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Donnelly and S

    W. Donnelly and S. B. Giddings, Phys. Rev. D 94, no.10, 104038 (2016) [arXiv:1607.01025 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. B. Giddings, JHEP 12, 047 (2017) [arXiv:1701.08765 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Donnelly and S

    W. Donnelly and S. B. Giddings, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.8, 086013 (2017) [arXiv:1706.03104 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S. B. Giddings, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 22, 2949-2954 (2007) [arXiv:0705.2197 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  22. [30]

    D. R. Terno, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14, 2307-2314 (2005) [arXiv:gr-qc/0505068 [gr-qc]]

    2005 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Levay, Phys

    P. Levay, Phys. Rev. D 75, 024024 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0610314 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Levay, Phys

    P. Levay, Phys. Rev. D 76, 106011 (2007) [arXiv:0708.2799 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  25. [33]

    M. J. Duff and S. Ferrara, Subnucl. Ser. 44, 101-135 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Levay, M

    P. Levay, M. Saniga and P. Vrana, Phys. Rev. D 78, 124022 (2008) [arXiv:0808.3849 [quant-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Borsten, D

    L. Borsten, D. Dahanayake, M. J. Duff, H. Ebrahim and W. Rubens, Phys. Rept. 471, 113-219 (2009) [arXiv:0809.4685 [hep-th]]. 8

    2009 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Rubens, Fortsch

    W. Rubens, Fortsch. Phys. 57, 672-677 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    Levay, Phys

    P. Levay, Phys. Rev. D 82, 026003 (2010) [arXiv:1004.3639 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Borsten, M

    L. Borsten, M. J. Duff, A. Marrani and W. Rubens, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 126, 37 (2011) [arXiv:1101.3559 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Levay, Phys

    P. Levay, Phys. Rev. D 84, 025023 (2011) [arXiv:1104.0144 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    S. G. Avery, JHEP 01, 176 (2013) [arXiv:1109.2911 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. Gomez, Fortsch. Phys. 61, 742-767 (2013) [arXiv:1112.3359 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Borsten, M

    L. Borsten, M. J. Duff and P. Levay, Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 224008 (2012) [arXiv:1206.3166 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. Gomez, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2752 (2014) [arXiv:1207.4059 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Capozziello, P

    S. Capozziello, P. A. Gonzalez, E. N. Saridakis and Y. Vasquez, JHEP 02, 039 (2013) [arXiv:1210.1098 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Levay, M

    P. Levay, M. Planat and M. Saniga, contextuality and black holes,” JHEP 09, 037 (2013) [arXiv:1305.5689 [math-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Verlinde and H

    E. Verlinde and H. Verlinde, [arXiv:1306.0516 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    M. J. Duff, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 462, no.1, 012012 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    Borsten, black J

    L. Borsten, black J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 462, no.1, 012005 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. Gomez, [arXiv:1307.7630 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Prudencio, D

    T. Prudencio, D. J. Cirilo-Lombardo, E. O. Silva and H. Belich, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 30, no.23, 1550104 (2015) [arXiv:1401.4196 [quant-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Pramodh and V

    S. Pramodh and V. Sahakian, JHEP 07, 067 (2015) [arXiv:1412.2396 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Chatwin-Davies, A

    A. Chatwin-Davies, A. S. Jermyn and S. M. Carroll, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, no.26, 261302 (2015) [arXiv:1507.03592 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Shen and Y

    Dai, Z. Shen and Y. Shi, Phys. Rev. D 94, no.2, 025012 (2016) [arXiv:1512.04886 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Belhaj, Z

    A. Belhaj, Z. Benslimane, M. B. Sedra and A. Segui, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 13, no.06, 1650075 (2016) [arXiv:1601.07610 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Belhaj, M

    A. Belhaj, M. Bensed, Z. Benslimane, M. B. Sedra and A. Segui, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 14, no.06, 1750087 (2017) [arXiv:1604.03998 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Landauer, IBM Journal of Research and Development, 5, 183-191 (1961)

    R. Landauer, IBM Journal of Research and Development, 5, 183-191 (1961)

    1961

  49. [57]

    Vinjanampathy, J

    S. Vinjanampathy, J. Anders, Contemp. Phys. 57, 545 (2016) [arXiv:1508.06099 [quant-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Plenio, V

    M.B. Plenio, V. Vitelli, Contemp. Phys. 42, 1 (2001) [arXiv:quant-ph/0103108 [quant-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Maruyama, F

    K. Maruyama, F. Nori and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1-23 (2009) [arXiv:0707.3400 [physics.hist-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Oppenheim, M

    J. Oppenheim, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, no.18, 180402 (2002)

    2002

  53. [61]

    W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. A 67, 012320 (2003)

    2003

  54. [62]

    Maruyama, F

    K. Maruyama, F. Morikoshi, V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. A 71, 012108 (2005)

    2005

  55. [63]

    K. Funo, Y. Watanabe, M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A 88, 052319 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    Perarnau-Llobet, K

    M. Perarnau-Llobet, K. V. Hovhannisyan, M. Huber, P. Skrzypczyk, N. Brunner and A. Ac ´ ın, Phys. Rev. X 5, no.4, 041011 (2015)

    2015

  57. [65]

    M. A. Ciampini, L. Mancino, A. Orieux, C. Vigliar, P. Mataloni, M. Paternostro and M. Barbieri, npj Quantum Inf. 3, 10 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    Lloyd, Phys

    S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. A 56, 3374 (1997)

    1997

  59. [67]

    T. D. Kieu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, no.14, 140403 (2004)

    2004

  60. [68]

    Beyer, K

    K. Beyer, K. Luoma, W. T. Strunz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 250606 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    Elouard, D

    C. Elouard, D. Herrera-Marti, B. Huard, A, Auffeves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 260603 (2017)

    2017

  62. [70]

    W. Ji, Z. Chai, M. Wang, Y. Guo, X. Rong, F. Shi, C. Ren, Y. Wang and J. Du, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, no.9, 090602 (2022) [arXiv:2202.02009 [quant-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. B 195, 337 (1987)

    1987

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.