Quantum Black Holes as Atoms

Jacob D. Bekenstein (Hebrew Universiy; Jerusalem)

REVIEW

Quantum Black Holes as Atoms

Jacob D. Bekenstein (Hebrew Universiy, Jerusalem)

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology · Submitted 15 Oct 1997 · 36 references

Pith's verdict: An honest 1997 review of the uniform-area-spectrum program, with a new axiomatic algebra that delivers the ladder but not the rung spacing.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 11, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 7 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDgr-qc/9710076 (version 2)

Pith IDNYX4YNK7, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationJacob D. Bekenstein (Hebrew Universiy, Jerusalem). "Quantum Black Holes as Atoms." arXiv:gr-qc/9710076 (1997). https://pith.science/paper/NYX4YNK7

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

The thing to know: this is Bekenstein's conference review of the uniform-area-spectrum program, and the genuinely new part is Secs. 7-9, an operator algebra (with Mukhanov) that derives the uniform ladder from three axioms. The ladder, not the spacing — the algebra explicitly cannot fix a1. The numerical value a_n = 4 ln 2 ℓ_P² n comes from somewhere else, and that is where the paper is soft. What it does well: Secs. 3-4 are good physics. The Reissner-Nordström and Kerr calculations showing ΔA = 0 for adiabatic absorption are clean, and the finite-radius refinement giving (ΔA)_min = 8πμb is a neat way to make the point that quantum mechanics forbids the b → 0 limit. The patchwork-horizon entropy argument in Sec. 5 is heuristic but honest about being heuristic. The literature survey is even-handed: it lists Berezin, Dolgov-Khriplovich, Mäkelä-Repo and the loop-gravity result as dissenters rather than burying them. And the correspondence-principle check in Sec. 6 — level spacing ~1/M against classical ringing frequencies — is a real consistency test, with the pointed observation that loop gravity fails it. Where it is soft: the stress-test concern lands. Eq. 21 gives (ΔA)_min = 8πξℓ_P² with ξ 'of order unity'; Eq. 28 adopts α = 4 ln 2 ≈ 2.77. Those agree only if ξ = ln 2/2π ≈ 0.11, which is not 'of order unity' and is never stated. So the numerical spacing is fixed by calibrating to S = A/4ℓ_P² in Sec. 5, and the uniform spectrum is then presented as explaining S ∝ A. The paper is candid that Mukhanov's route 'starts from the accepted formula,' but it does not flag the tension between its own two routes. That is the one thing I would want fixed. The Sec. 8 step ('either all T vanish or all B vanish') is flagged as informal by the author, so I will not belabor it, but it is load-bearing for the algebra. Who it is for: anyone working on black hole quantization or entropy counting. Worth citing as the standard statement of the area-spectrum program. Send it to referees.

Referee report

Significance

The paper is a well-organized statement of a long-running research program with a genuinely falsifiable prediction: a line emission spectrum with uniform spacing ω0 = ln 2/(8πM) that survives, in the author's estimate, up to macroscopic masses. The adiabatic-invariant framing of horizon area (Sec. 3) and the operator-algebra construction (Secs. 7–9) are conceptually useful and have stimulated a body of follow-up work, and the review's survey of formal quantization approaches (Sec. 5) is a service to the field. The correspondence-principle check in Sec. 6 — that the level spacing scales as M⁻¹ in agreement with classical ringing frequencies — is a real consistency test that alternative spectra must also pass. The value of the contribution depends on how firmly the coefficient in Eq. 28 is established, which is where the report's concerns concentrate.

Major objections (4)

[Sec. 4, Eq. (21) vs. Sec. 5, Eq. (28)] The paper states the level spacing twice with numerically incompatible coefficients and does not reconcile them. In Sec. 4, (ΔA)_min = 8πξħ with ξ 'a number of order unity' (Eq. 21) is explicitly identified with the spacing between Â eigenvalues. In Sec. 5 the adopted spectrum is a_n = 4 ln 2 · ℓ_P² · n (Eq. 28), i.e. α = 4 ln 2 ≈ 2.77. For ξ ~ 1, Eq. 21 gives ≈ 25 ℓ_P², roughly nine times larger. The two agree only for ξ = ln 2/(2π) ≈ 0.11, which is not naturally described as 'of order unity' and is nowhere stated. Since the algebra of Sec. 9 explicitly 'cannot set the area scale a1', Eq. 28's coefficient rests entirely on the entropy calibration of Sec. 5, and the Sec. 4 estimate is left as an unreconciled independent route. The paper should either state the value of ξ implied by Eq. 28 or explicitly downgrade Eq. 21 to an order-of-magnitude statement that does not fix the coefficient.
[Sec. 5, Eqs. (23)–(28)] The 'demystification' of S ∝ A is conditional on the very relation it is presented as explaining. The patchwork argument derives S_BH = (ln k/α)(A/ℓ_P²) (Eq. 24), but α is then fixed by comparison with Hawking's coefficient, α = 4 ln k (Eq. 25), so the proportionality is recovered only because it was inserted. The paper acknowledges this in spirit for Mukhanov's route ('starts from the accepted formula relating black hole area and entropy'), but the patchwork presentation in the main text does not carry the same caveat, and the choice k = 2 (hence α = 4 ln 2, g1 = 2, η = 0) is made for the aesthetic reason of eliminating additive constants rather than derived. The logical status should be stated plainly: given uniform spacing, S ∝ A follows; the spacing itself is calibrated from S ∝ A. As written, a reader may take Sec. 5 as independent support for Eq. 28 when it is not.
[Sec. 8, Eq. (50) and the passage following it] The step that eliminates the B term — 'One can also give an informal argument that either all T̂_κs ≡ 0 or all B_κsλt ≡ 0' — is load-bearing for the entire algebraic route. If B does not vanish, the clean commutator [Â, R̂^new] = a R̂^new (Eq. 52) is not obtained, and the additivity result of Sec. 9 that yields the uniform ladder does not follow. The argument as given is a plausibility count of eigenvectors of an infinite matrix truncated to finite dimension, with two escape clauses ('This does not look likely'; 'The other escape clause is...') rather than a proof. The paper calls it informal, which is honest, but the consequence — that the algebra's central conclusion is conditional on an unproved eigenvalue-counting claim — should be stated where the conclusion is drawn in Sec. 9, not only where the argument is made.
[Sec. 6, Eq. (34)] The observability claim for the line spectrum turns on natural broadening, and the paper's estimate Δω/ω0 ~ 0.019γ (Eq. 34) depends on a fudge factor γ that is asserted to be 'of order unity' and then allowed to grow 'by no more than an order of magnitude.' Mäkelä's contrary estimate (ref. 33), that the lines wash out, is set aside by an unquantified appeal to two tendencies that 'partly compensate.' Since Eq. 34 makes the survival condition explicit and testable — lines remain resolved for γ ≲ 50 — the paper should state that threshold and give its grounds for believing γ lies below it, rather than leaving the reader to infer the margin. As it stands, the headline prediction of Sec. 6 is defended by an estimate whose controlling parameter is not bounded.

Minor objections (7)

[Title] The title as printed reads 'QUANTUM BLACK HOLES AS A TOMS'; it should read 'AS ATOMS'.
[Sec. 2, Eq. (5)] The Heaviside argument in Eq. (5) is written Θ(Â − (Q̂² + Ĝ²)² + (8π)²Ĵ²), which omits the square root present in the physical-domain condition of Eq. (4), A ≥ √((Q² + G²)² + (8π)²J²). The two expressions should match.
[Sec. 6, Eq. (30)] The range of n is printed as 'n = 1, 2' and should be 'n = 1, 2, …'.
[Sec. 7, Axiom 1 vs. Sec. 5, Eq. (28)] Axiom 1 indexes area eigenvalues as a_n with n = 0, 1, 2, … and a_0 = 0, whereas Eq. (28) uses n = 1, 2, … with a_1 = 4 ln 2 · ℓ_P². The two conventions should be reconciled explicitly so that the vacuum and the ground-state black hole are not conflated.
[Sec. 6] The statement that the number of quanta in a given line is Poisson distributed is asserted without derivation; a sentence indicating the basis for this would help.
[References] Reference 19 has a stray closing bracket: 'JETP Letters 44, 267 (1986)]'.
[Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors at the level of the text, e.g. 'generalization' for 'generalizations' (Sec. 2), 'he horizon area' for 'the horizon area' (Sec. 3), 'anhilate' for 'annihilate' (Secs. 8–9), 'substracting' and 'eigevalues' (Sec. 9). These should be corrected in the published version.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Bekenstein argues that a black hole's horizon area, like an atom's energy, comes in equally spaced quantum steps, so the smooth Hawking glow should really be a line spectrum.

The reading

The paper asks whether a black hole's horizon area is quantized in equally spaced steps, the way an atom's energy levels are, and answers yes by treating area as the black hole analogue of a classical adiabatic invariant. The argument runs through Christodoulou-style reversible capture of a particle: for a nonextremal hole the area barely changes during a slow, reversible absorption, and once quantum blurring of the captured particle is included there is a smallest possible area increase, $8πξℏ$, independent of the hole's mass, charge and spin. By Ehrenfest's rule — every classical adiabatic invariant becomes a quantum observable with a discrete spectrum — that universal minimum increment is read as the rung spacing of the area ladder, giving $a_n = 4ℓ_P^2 ln 2 · n$ and hence a discrete mass spectrum with level gaps of order $1/M$. If this is right, the semiclassical Hawking continuum is really a set of lines at integer multiples of $ω_0 = ln 2/(8πM)$, potentially detectable even for holes far above the Planck mass, and the entropy-area proportionality follows from counting the exponentially growing degeneracy $g_n = 2^n$ of each rung. The second half of the paper builds a small axiomatic operator algebra for area, charge and spin whose commutators reproduce the same uniform ladder and the same exponential degeneracy.

What carries the argument

Two machines carry the argument. The first is the adiabatic-invariant identification: horizon area is shown to be unchanged, to first order, when a black hole is nudged slowly and reversibly — by absorbing a particle shot in from a turning point at the horizon, or by absorbing a wave tuned to the hole's rotational frequency — and Ehrenfest's hypothesis then converts any such classical invariant into a quantum observable with a discrete spectrum. The second is the operator algebra, whose single decisive commutator $[Â, R̂_κ] = a_κ R̂_κ$ says that creating a black hole shifts the area by a fixed amount; iterating it makes sums of area eigenvalues into area eigenvalues, and the absence of a positive eigenvalue below $a_1$ rules out fractional rungs. The Christodoulou–Ruffini mass-area relation $M^2 = A/(16π)(1 + 4π(Q^2+G^2)/A)^2 + 4πJ^2/A$ is the bridge that turns the area ladder into a mass ladder and hence into an emission spectrum.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the horizon area of a nonextremal Kerr–Newman black hole has the uniformly spaced eigenvalue spectrum $a_n = 4ℓ_P^2 ln 2 · n$ for $n = 1, 2, 3, …$, with degeneracy $g_n = 2^n$. Because mass is tied to area by the Christodoulou–Ruffini relation, this forces a discrete mass spectrum, $M ∝ √n$ for a neutral nonrotating hole, with adjacent levels separated by $ℏω_0 = ℏ ln 2/(8πM)$ — a spacing that shrinks as $1/M$ and therefore matches the classical ringdown frequencies, as Bohr's correspondence principle demands. The degeneracy is fixed by requiring that $exp(S_{BH})$ be an integer for every rung, which selects $α = 4 ln 2$ and a doubly degenerate ground state, and it yields the entropy-area proportionality without inserting it by hand: a horizon assembled from $A/(αℓ_P^2)$ equivalent patches, each with $k = 2$ states, has $2^{A/αℓ_P^2}$ states. The paper then exhibits an algebra of creation operators $R̂_{njmqs}$ obeying $[Â, R̂_κ] = a_κ R̂_κ$, together with the spin and charge commutators, and shows that closure of the algebra forces the area eigenvalues to be exactly the integer multiples of the lowest one, with degeneracy growing at least as fast as $g(1)^n$.

Load-bearing premise

The step from a universal minimum area increase of $8πξℏ$, with $ξ$ an undetermined number of order unity, to the conclusion that the area eigenvalues are uniformly spaced by exactly that amount: a universal smallest increment does not by itself force a uniform ladder, and $ξ$ is never derived.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Black hole evaporation is not a smooth thermal continuum but a line spectrum with frequencies at integer multiples of $ω_0 = ln 2/(8πM)$, whose spacing scales as $1/M$ at every mass scale.
A Schwarzschild hole cannot emit or absorb below $ω_0$, which resolves the conflict with classical low-frequency absorption only through many-quantum processes at high incident intensity.
The entropy-area proportionality follows from counting degenerate states of a patchwork horizon, with the coefficient of proportionality calibrated to $α = 4 ln 2$ and a doubly degenerate ground state.
Extremal black holes fall outside the scheme: the adiabatic-invariant argument fails there, and their area spectrum is instead the complicated one implied by the extremal mass formula.
If the lines survive natural broadening — estimated here at $Δω/ω_0 ∼ 0.019γ$ with $γ$ of order unity to perhaps ten — quantum gravity effects become observable for primordial black holes well above the Planck mass.

Reading between the lines

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

The scheme makes a sharp, if hard, observational bet: a periodic modulation in the gamma-ray background from a population of primordial black holes, with period set by each hole's mass, would be the signature, and a null search over a wide mass range would constrain the uniform-ladder premise rather than the algebra.
The algebra fixes the ratio of consecutive rung spacings but cannot fix the absolute scale $a_1$; a separate input — the minimum area increase, or the requirement that $exp(S)$ be integral — has to supply it, so any independent determination of the area quantum would be a direct test of the whole construction.
The exponential degeneracy $g_n = 2^n$ implies each area rung is a highly degenerate multiplet, which invites the same question atomic fine structure poses: whether residual interactions split the rungs, and whether the resulting sub-levels would appear as satellites around the main emission lines.
Because the level spacing grows as the hole shrinks, the line structure should be most pronounced in the final stages of evaporation, where the discrete-rung picture and the semiclassical picture make their most divergent predictions.

Original abstract

In some respects the black hole plays the same role in gravitation that the atom played in the nascent quantum mechanics. This analogy suggests that black hole mass $M$ might have a discrete spectrum. I review the physical arguments for the expectation that black hole horizon area eigenvalues are uniformly spaced, or equivalently, that the spacing between stationary black hole mass levels behaves like 1/M. This sort of spectrum has also emerged in a variety of formal approaches to black hole quantization by a number of workers (with some notable exceptions). If true, this result indicates a distortion of the semiclassical Hawking spectrum which could be observable even for macroscopic black holes. Black hole entropy suggests that the mentioned mass levels should be degenerate to the tune of an exponential in $M^2$, as first noted by Mukhanov. This has implications for the statistics of the radiation. I also discuss open questions: whether radiative decay will spread the levels beyond recognition, whether extremal black holes can be described by this scheme, etc. I then describe an elementary algebra for the relevant black hole observables, an outcome of work by Mukhanov and myself, which reproduces the uniformly spaced area spectrum.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 6,849 input tokens, $0.0003 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.80 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.48 · compares with prior results 0.85 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

In some respects the black hole plays the same role in gravitation that the atom played in the nascent quantum mechanics. This analogy suggests that black hole mass $M$ might have a discrete spectrum. I review the physical arguments for the expectation that black hole horizon area eigenvalues are uniformly spaced, or equivalently, that the spacing between stationary black hole mass levels behaves like 1/M. This sort of spectrum has also emerged in a variety of formal approaches to black hole quantization by a number of workers (with some notable exceptions). If true, this result indicates a distortion of the semiclassical Hawking spectrum which could be observable even for macroscopic black holes. Black hole entropy suggests that the mentioned mass levels should be degenerate to the tune of an exponential in $M^2$, as first noted by Mukhanov. This has implications for the statistics of the radiation. I also discuss open questions: whether radiative decay will spread the levels beyond recognition, whether extremal black holes can be described by this scheme, etc. I then describe an elementary algebra for the relevant black hole observables, an outcome of work by Mukhanov and myself, which reproduces the uniformly spaced area spectrum.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	In some respects the black hole plays the same role in gravitation that the atom played in the nascent quantum mechanics.	background 0.99	0.05	0.05	asserted 0.68
s1	This analogy suggests that black hole mass $M$ might have a discrete spectrum.	background 0.76	0.07	0.15	hedged possibility 0.70
s2	I review the physical arguments for the expectation that black hole horizon area eigenvalues are uniformly spaced, or equivalently, that the spacing between stationary black hole mass levels behaves like 1/M.	contribution 0.85	0.21	0.35	hedged possibility 0.43
s3	This sort of spectrum has also emerged in a variety of formal approaches to black hole quantization by a number of workers (with some notable exceptions).	background 0.99	0.04	0.07	asserted 0.97
s4	If true, this result indicates a distortion of the semiclassical Hawking spectrum which could be observable even for macroscopic black holes.	interpretation 0.99	0.13	0.23	hedged possibility 1.00
s5	Black hole entropy suggests that the mentioned mass levels should be degenerate to the tune of an exponential in $M^2$, as first noted by Mukhanov.	background 0.53	0.05	0.08	asserted 0.61
s6	This has implications for the statistics of the radiation.	interpretation 0.99	0.10	0.04	asserted 0.78
s7	I also discuss open questions: whether radiative decay will spread the levels beyond recognition, whether extremal black holes can be described by this scheme, etc.	future work 0.60	0.22	0.03	unclear 0.84
s8	I then describe an elementary algebra for the relevant black hole observables, an outcome of work by Mukhanov and myself, which reproduces the uniformly spaced area spectrum.	contribution 0.88	0.88	0.24	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: review 0.95 · evidence from argument 0.75.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (36)

[1]

J.D. Bekenstein, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 11, 467 (1974)

View on Pith 1974
[2]

V. Mukhanov, JETP Letters 44, 63 (1986); V Mukhanov in Complexity, En- tropy and the Physics of Information: SFI Studies in the Scie nces of Com- plexity, Vol. III, ed. W H Zurek (Addison–Wesley, New York, 1990)

View on Pith 1986
[3]

J D Bekenstein in XVII Brazilian National Meeting on Particles and Fields , eds. A J da Silva, et. al (Brazilian Physical Society, 1996)

View on Pith 1996
[4]

R. Ruﬃni and J.A. Wheeler, Physics Today 24, 30 (1971)

View on Pith 1971
[5]

P. Mazur, Gen. Rel. Grav. 19, 1173 (1987)

View on Pith 1987
[6]

D. Christodoulou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 1596 (1970); D. Christodoulou and R. Ruﬃni, Phys. Rev. D 4, 3552 (1971)

View on Pith 1970
[7]

For example see M Born, Atomic Physics (Blackie, London, 1969), eighth edition

View on Pith 1969
[8]

J D Jackson Classical Electrodynamics (Wiley, New York, 1962)

View on Pith 1962
[9]

E M Lifshitz, L P Pitaevskii and V I Berestetskii, Quantum Electrodynamics (Pergamon, Oxford, 1982)

View on Pith 1982
[10]

For further evidence see J D Bekenstein in The Black Hole Trail , eds. B. Bhawal and B. Iyer (Kluwer, Dordrecht 1998)

View on Pith 1998
[11]

A.A. Starobinskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 37, 28 (1973)

View on Pith 1973
[12]

S.W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 1344 (1971). 19

View on Pith 1971
[13]

J.D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973)

View on Pith 1973
[14]

See the description of “Bekenstein’s telephone number” for horizon elements in J A Wheeler, A Journey into Gravitation and Spacetime (Freeman, New York, 1990)

View on Pith 1990
[15]

R.D. Sorkin, in Black Holes and Relativistic Stars , ed. R M Wald (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1998)

View on Pith 1998
[16]

J.D. Bekenstein and V.F. Mukhanov, Phys. Lett. B 360, 7 (1995)

View on Pith 1995
[17]

J.D. Bekenstein and V.F. Mukhanov in Sixth Moscow Quantum Gravity Sem- inar, eds. V A Berezin, V A Rubakov and D V Semikoz (World Publishin g, Singapore, 1997)

View on Pith 1997
[18]

U.H. Danielsson and M. Schiﬀer, Phys. Rev. D 48, 4779 (1993)

View on Pith 1993
[19]

Ya.I. Kogan, JETP Letters 44, 267 (1986)]; I. I. Kogan, preprint hep– th/9412232

View on Pith 1986
[20]

M. Maggiore, Nucl. Phys. B 429, 205 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[21]

C.O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 51, 1733 (1995)

View on Pith 1995
[22]

M. Schiﬀer, “Black hole spectroscopy”, S˜ ao Paulo prepr int IFT/P–38/89 (1989)

View on Pith 1989
[23]

Y. Peleg, Phys. Lett. B 356, 462 (1995)

View on Pith 1995
[24]

V. Berezin, Phys. Rev. D 55, 2139 (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[25]

A.D. Dolgov and I.B. Khriplovich, preprint hep-th/9703 042

View on Pith
[26]

J. Louko and J. M¨ akel¨ a,Phys. Rev. D 54, 4982 (1996)

View on Pith 1996
[27]

A. Barvinskii and G. Kunstatter, Phys. Lett. B 289, 231 (1996)

View on Pith 1996
[28]

J. M¨ akel¨ a, preprint gr-qc/9602008

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[29]

H. Kastrup, Phys. Lett. B 385, 75 (1996)

View on Pith 1996
[30]

J. M¨ akel¨ a and P. Repo, preprint gr-qc/9708029

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[31]

M. Barreira, M. Carfora and C. Rovelli, Gen. Rel. Grav. 28, 1293 (1996)

View on Pith 1996
[32]

K.V. Krasnov, Phys. Rev. D 55, 3505 (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[33]

J. M¨ akel¨ a,Phys. Lett. B 390, 115 (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[34]

D. Page, Phys. Rev. D 13, 198 (1976)

View on Pith 1976
[35]

W. Pauli, Z. Phys. 36, 336 (1926)

View on Pith 1926
[36]

E. Merzbacher Quantum Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1970). 20

View on Pith 1970

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

On the Classification of Asymptotic Quasinormal Frequencies for d-Dimensional Black Holes and Quantum Gravity
hep-th 2004-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Asymptotic quasinormal frequencies are computed analytically for static spherically symmetric black holes in d>3 dimensions, and the resulting formulas show that only the Schwarzschild case supports the area-quantizat...
Reconciling fractional entropy and black hole entropy compositions
gr-qc 2025-01 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

Fractional entropy of order 2 reproduces the idealized black hole entropy composition and yields a universal empirical temperature near the Planck temperature.
Gravitational wave echoes from black hole area quantization
hep-th 2019-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Modeling a Bekenstein-Mukhanov quantized horizon as a frequency-selective mirror, the authors find that post-merger gravitational-wave echoes carry absorption dips at the quantized frequencies, a potentially observabl...
Black Holes: Classical Properties, Thermodynamics and Heuristic Quantization
gr-qc 1998-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Horizon area behaves as an adiabatic invariant, which suggests it is quantized in equal steps of about 4 ln 2 Planck areas, so black holes should have discrete masses and emit a line spectrum rather than a smooth thermal one.
Surface Density of Spacetime Degrees of Freedom from Equipartition Law in theories of Gravity
gr-qc 2010-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Applying equipartition at the Unruh temperature to surface area elements gives a number density of spacetime degrees of freedom whose entropy reproduces Wald entropy in any diffeomorphism invariant theory of gravity.

Show 1 more citing papers

Lanczos-Lovelock models of gravity
gr-qc 2013-02 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

Lanczos-Lovelock gravity shares Einstein gravity's horizon thermodynamics and emergent-gravity structure, making it a testbed for the idea that gravity is not fundamental.

How the literature uses it

51 arXiv papers cite this in 84 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 45 sentences without a confident label

Contests it 2 papers

However,the area spectrum is not consistent with the following references [ref] and the Bekenstein conjecture [ref] .

Spectroscopy of the rotating BTZ black hole via adiabatic invariance · Introduction · contest 0.71
Bekenstein and Mukhanov [ref] once tried to provide explanations for the blackhole entropy and quantisation at the same level but failed.

Information Missing Puzzle, Where Is Hawking's Error? · Introduction · contest 0.93

Builds on it 1 paper

In this paper, we will treat the inner horizon and its interior as an atom, generalizing some similar ideas previously studied in the literature [ref] .

Hawking Radiation, Entanglement Entropy, and Information Paradox of Kerr Black Holes · Inside Inner Horizon · 0.98

Compares with it 5 papers

The resulting black hole entropy spectrum is equally spaced and the corresponding horizon area quantum is identical as derived by Maggiore [ref] and by Bekenstein [ref] .

Spectroscopy of the rotating BTZ black hole via adiabatic invariance · Introduction · 0.99
The above results imply that the spectral-spacing coefficient becomes $ϵ=8π$, which is fully in agreement with the Bekenstein's original result [ref] .

Quantization of rotating linear dilaton black holes · QNMs and entropy/area spectra of RLDBHs · 0.80
Mass spectra obtained in previous studies [ref] are apparently different form our result.

Quantum effects of black holes and cosmological constant problem · Quantum Schwarzschild solutions · 0.97

Cites it as support 1 paper

This is justified by the extremely weak interaction between two or more such gravitons that would be necessary for emission of more than one graviton [ref] , and by arguments of Bekenstein in [ref] .] The spectrum ([ref]) has the same scaling with $M G$ as the QNMs, but the dependence on $a$ is quite different (Figure [ref]).

Testing Quantum Black Holes with Gravitational Waves · Testing Bekenstein-Mukhanov with LIGO · 0.99

Cites it as background 28 papers

It was first proposed by Bekenstein [ref] that the horizon area is an adiabatic invariant and should be quantized, based on Ehrenfest principle that any classical adiabatic invariant corresponds to a quantum entity with discrete spectrum.

Entropy spectra of black holes from resonance modes in scattering by the black holes · Introduction · 0.82
According to Bekenstein [ref] , quantization of the black hole area means that the area spectrum of black hole is of the form [equation] where $ΔA$ is the quantum of black hole area.

The entropy and mean separation between energy levels of black hole · Introduction · 0.88
The history of this aspect starts with Bekenstein's famous conjecture [ref] [ref] that in a quantum theory, the black hole horizon area should have a equally spaced discrete spectrum such that, A_n = ϵl_P^2 n; n=0,1,2,...

Quasi normal modes and the area spectrum of a near extremal de Sitter black hole with conformally coupled scalar field · Introduction · 0.92

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

J.D. Bekenstein, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 11, 467 (1974)

View on Pith 1974

[2] [2]

V. Mukhanov, JETP Letters 44, 63 (1986); V Mukhanov in Complexity, En- tropy and the Physics of Information: SFI Studies in the Scie nces of Com- plexity, Vol. III, ed. W H Zurek (Addison–Wesley, New York, 1990)

View on Pith 1986

[3] [3]

J D Bekenstein in XVII Brazilian National Meeting on Particles and Fields , eds. A J da Silva, et. al (Brazilian Physical Society, 1996)

View on Pith 1996

[4] [4]

R. Ruﬃni and J.A. Wheeler, Physics Today 24, 30 (1971)

View on Pith 1971

[5] [5]

P. Mazur, Gen. Rel. Grav. 19, 1173 (1987)

View on Pith 1987

[6] [6]

D. Christodoulou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 1596 (1970); D. Christodoulou and R. Ruﬃni, Phys. Rev. D 4, 3552 (1971)

View on Pith 1970

[7] [7]

For example see M Born, Atomic Physics (Blackie, London, 1969), eighth edition

View on Pith 1969

[8] [8]

J D Jackson Classical Electrodynamics (Wiley, New York, 1962)

View on Pith 1962

[9] [9]

E M Lifshitz, L P Pitaevskii and V I Berestetskii, Quantum Electrodynamics (Pergamon, Oxford, 1982)

View on Pith 1982

[10] [10]

For further evidence see J D Bekenstein in The Black Hole Trail , eds. B. Bhawal and B. Iyer (Kluwer, Dordrecht 1998)

View on Pith 1998

[11] [11]

A.A. Starobinskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 37, 28 (1973)

View on Pith 1973

[12] [12]

S.W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 1344 (1971). 19

View on Pith 1971

[13] [13]

J.D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973)

View on Pith 1973

[14] [14]

See the description of “Bekenstein’s telephone number” for horizon elements in J A Wheeler, A Journey into Gravitation and Spacetime (Freeman, New York, 1990)

View on Pith 1990

[15] [15]

R.D. Sorkin, in Black Holes and Relativistic Stars , ed. R M Wald (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1998)

View on Pith 1998

[16] [16]

J.D. Bekenstein and V.F. Mukhanov, Phys. Lett. B 360, 7 (1995)

View on Pith 1995

[17] [17]

J.D. Bekenstein and V.F. Mukhanov in Sixth Moscow Quantum Gravity Sem- inar, eds. V A Berezin, V A Rubakov and D V Semikoz (World Publishin g, Singapore, 1997)

View on Pith 1997

[18] [18]

U.H. Danielsson and M. Schiﬀer, Phys. Rev. D 48, 4779 (1993)

View on Pith 1993

[19] [19]

Ya.I. Kogan, JETP Letters 44, 267 (1986)]; I. I. Kogan, preprint hep– th/9412232

View on Pith 1986

[20] [20]

M. Maggiore, Nucl. Phys. B 429, 205 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[21] [21]

C.O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 51, 1733 (1995)

View on Pith 1995

[22] [22]

M. Schiﬀer, “Black hole spectroscopy”, S˜ ao Paulo prepr int IFT/P–38/89 (1989)

View on Pith 1989

[23] [23]

Y. Peleg, Phys. Lett. B 356, 462 (1995)

View on Pith 1995

[24] [24]

V. Berezin, Phys. Rev. D 55, 2139 (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[25] [25]

A.D. Dolgov and I.B. Khriplovich, preprint hep-th/9703 042

View on Pith

[26] [26]

J. Louko and J. M¨ akel¨ a,Phys. Rev. D 54, 4982 (1996)

View on Pith 1996

[27] [27]

A. Barvinskii and G. Kunstatter, Phys. Lett. B 289, 231 (1996)

View on Pith 1996

[28] [28]

J. M¨ akel¨ a, preprint gr-qc/9602008

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[29] [29]

H. Kastrup, Phys. Lett. B 385, 75 (1996)

View on Pith 1996

[30] [30]

J. M¨ akel¨ a and P. Repo, preprint gr-qc/9708029

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[31] [31]

M. Barreira, M. Carfora and C. Rovelli, Gen. Rel. Grav. 28, 1293 (1996)

View on Pith 1996

[32] [32]

K.V. Krasnov, Phys. Rev. D 55, 3505 (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[33] [33]

J. M¨ akel¨ a,Phys. Lett. B 390, 115 (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[34] [34]

D. Page, Phys. Rev. D 13, 198 (1976)

View on Pith 1976

[35] [35]

W. Pauli, Z. Phys. 36, 336 (1926)

View on Pith 1926

[36] [36]

E. Merzbacher Quantum Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1970). 20

View on Pith 1970