Cited by 100Black Holes and Theoretical PhysicsNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesQuantum Mechanics and Applications

Unitarity of black hole evaporation in final-state projection models

Open access
Lloyd, Seth, Preskill, John·2014·Journal of High Energy Physics

Abstract

Almheiri et al. have emphasized that otherwise reasonable beliefs about black hole evaporation are incompatible with the monogamy of quantum entanglement, a general property of quantum mechanics. We investigate the final-state projection model of black hole evaporation proposed by Horowitz and Maldacena, pointing out that this model admits cloning of quantum states and polygamous entanglement, allowing unitarity of the evaporation process to be reconciled with smoothness of the black hole event horizon. Though the model seems to require carefully tuned dynamics to ensure exact unitarity of the black hole S-matrix, for a generic final-state boundary condition the deviations from unitarity are exponentially small in the black hole entropy; furthermore observers inside black holes need not detect any deviations from standard quantum mechanics. Though measurements performed inside old black holes could potentially produce causality-violating phenomena, the computational complexity of decoding the Hawking radiation may render the causality violation unobservable. Final-state projection models illustrate how inviolable principles of standard quantum mechanics might be circumvented in a theory of quantum gravity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/jhep08(2014)126

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • It is well known that final state projection models can lead to issues with describing measurements done by an observer falling into the black hole.

    “It is well known that final state projection models can lead to issues with describing measurements done by an observer falling into the black hole [74-76].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lloyd, S., & Preskill, J.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Preskill, John
Venue
Journal of High Energy Physics
Published
2014-08
Volume
2014
Issue
8
ISSN
1029-8479 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2095590093
Cited by
100
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3
FWCI
4.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of High Energy Physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Black Holes and Theoretical Physics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
Keywords
black hole evaporation, unitarity, polygamy of entanglement, quantum cloning, Hawking radiation, causality violation, quantum gravity, black hole information

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