CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 194Black Holes and Theoretical PhysicsQuantum many-body systemsQuantum Electrodynamics and Casimir Effect

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Information radiation in BCFT models of black holes

Open access
Rozali, Moshe, Sully, James, Van Raamsdonk, Mark, Waddell, Christopher, Wakeham, David·2020·Journal of High Energy Physics
DOI 10.1007/jhep05(2020)004
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this note, following [1–3], we introduce and study various holographic systems which can describe evaporating black holes. The systems we consider are boundary conformal field theories for which the number of local degrees of freedom on the boundary (cbdy) is large compared to the number of local degrees of freedom in the bulk CFT (cbulk). We consider states where the boundary degrees of freedom on their own would describe an equilibrium black hole, but the coupling to the bulk CFT degrees of freedom allows this black hole to evaporate. The Page time for the black hole is controlled by the ratio cbdy/cbulk. Using both holographic calculations and direct CFT calculations, we study the evolution of the entanglement entropy for the subset of the radiation system (i.e. the bulk CFT) at a distance d > a from the boundary. We find that the entanglement entropy for this subsystem increases until time a + tPage and then undergoes a phase transition after which the entanglement wedge of the radiation system includes the black hole interior. Remarkably, this occurs even if the radiation system is initially at the same temperature as the black hole so that the two are in thermal equilibrium. In this case, even though the black hole does not lose energy, it “radiates” information through interaction with the radiation system until the radiation system contains enough information to reconstruct the black hole interior.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/jhep05(2020)004

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 194

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Rozali, M., Sully, J., Van Raamsdonk, M., Waddell, C., & Wakeham, D.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Sully, James
ORCID
Venue
Journal of High Energy Physics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-05
Volume
2020
Issue
5
ISSN
1029-8479 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/jhep05(2020)004
OpenAlex
W2981742893
Cited by
194
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 27
FWCI
17.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of High Energy Physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Simons Foundation
  • University of British Columbia
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Black Holes and Theoretical Physics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Electrodynamics and Casimir Effect
Keywords
black hole information paradox, black hole evaporation, holographic models, boundary conformal field theory, entanglement entropy, Page time, entanglement wedge, thermal equilibrium, phase transitions

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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