Unitarity of black hole evaporation in final-state projection models
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Entanglement wedge reconstruction and the information paradox (2020) · cites this paper as [74]
Cites
Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels
Bennett, C. H., Brassard, G., Crépeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., & Wootters, W. K. (1993) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.70.1895 · Cited by 13,703 · see citing works
HAWKING, S. W. (1974) · Nature · doi:10.1038/248030a0 · Cited by 5,669 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The quantum physics of black holes has caused great puzzlement since Stephen Hawking discovered [1] nearly 40 years ago that black holes evaporate.”
BackgroundA single quantum cannot be cloned
Wootters, W. K., & Zurek, W. H. (1982) · Nature · doi:10.1038/299802a0 · Cited by 5,406 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In this scenario, the S-matrix relating the asymptotic incoming state of the collapsing matter and asymptotic outgoing state of the emitted radiation can be unitary; however unitarity can be temporarily violated during the black hole evaporation process, accommodating violations of monogamy of entanglement and the no-…”
BackgroundLadd, T. D., Jelezko, F., Laflamme, R., Nakamura, Y., Monroe, C., & O’Brien, J. L. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08812 · Cited by 3,592 · see citing works
Black Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls?
Almheiri, A., Marolf, D., Polchinski, J., & Sully, J. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1207.3123 · Cited by 1,471
Cool horizons for entangled black holes
Maldacena, J., & Susskind, L. (2013) · Fortschritte der Physik · doi:10.1002/prop.201300020 · Cited by 1,304 · see citing works
An infalling observer in AdS/CFT
Papadodimas, K., & Raju, S. (2013) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep10(2013)212 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
Quantum computation vs. firewalls
Harlow, D., & Hayden, P. (2013) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep06(2013)085 · Cited by 310 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Entanglement wedge reconstruction and the information paradox
Penington, G. (2020) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep09(2020)002 · Cited by 968 · see citing works
Jerusalem lectures on black holes and quantum information
Harlow, D. (2016) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.015002 · Cited by 480 · see citing works
Unruh, W. G., & Wald, R. M. (2017) · Reports on Progress in Physics · doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aa778e · Cited by 259 · see citing works
The black hole information problem: past, present, and future
Marolf, D. (2017) · Reports on Progress in Physics · doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aa77cc · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Learning the Alpha-bits of black holes
Hayden, P., & Penington, G. (2019) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep12(2019)007 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lloyd, S., & Preskill, J.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Preskill, John
- ORCID
- Lloyd, Seth
- 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
- diamond
- doi.org
- 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