The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 16 of the 35 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
A covariant entropy conjecture
Open accessOverview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
105 Own interpretation · 20 No basis given · 6 No full text of the sources · 5 Supported · 4 Partly supported · 2 Supported so far · 2 Sources not found · 2 Not checked yet · 2 Own result · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Because of its symmetric treatment of the four light-like directions orthogonal to any surface, which marks its only significant difference from the Fischler-Susskind bound [9], our covariant prescription applies also to closed and recollapsing universes (sec.5.2).”
§ HYPER VERSION > 1.2 Outline
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] 9. W. Fischler and L. Susskind: Holography and cosmology, hep-th/9806039. JHEP07(1999)004 source
The citation identifies the Fischler–Susskind bound, not the citing authors’ claim about their own covariant prescription. In “Flat Universe” (p. 3), the source proposes an entropy bound using past-directed light rays; in “Non Flat Universe” (p. 6), it discusses difficulties for that bound in closed universes. The statement that the citing authors’ prescription applies to closed and recollapsing universes is their own conclusion, not a result attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“But the possibility of using any spatial hypersurface is already excluded by the counterexamples given at the end of sec.1.1; this was first pointed out in ref. [9].”
§ HYPER VERSION > 2. The conjecture
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] 9. W. Fischler and L. Susskind: Holography and cosmology, hep-th/9806039. JHEP07(1999)004 source
In §2 (p. 2), Fischler and Susskind reject the proposal that the entropy in any spatial region is bounded by its boundary area: sufficiently large regions violate it. They instead formulate the bound using entropy passing through a light-like surface from the boundary (§2, p. 3). (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Or consider a homogeneous spacelike hypersurface in a flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe.The entropy of a sufficiently large spherical volume will exceed the boundary area [9].”
§ HYPER VERSION > Bekenstein system.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] 9. W. Fischler and L. Susskind: Holography and cosmology, hep-th/9806039. JHEP07(1999)004 source
In “2. Flat Universe” (p. 2), the authors assume a flat Robertson–Walker cosmology with homogeneous, constant comoving entropy density. They state that entropy grows with a region’s volume while its boundary area grows more slowly, so for a sufficiently large region the entropy exceeds the area. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“As an example, we apply a corollary derived in sec.5.1 to understand why the bound of ref. [14] cannot be applied to a flat universe with negative cosmological constant [15].”
§ HYPER VERSION > 1.2 Outline
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [14] 14. D. Bak and S.-J. Rey: Cosmic holography, hep-th/9902173. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section “Cosmic Holography Tested Against FRW Unverse” discusses bounds for flat universes with specified equations of state and difficulties in closed or inflationary universes, but does not address a flat universe with a negative cosmological constant. Searches for that condition and for a negative cosmological constant yielded no passage establishing that the bound cannot be applied to it. (LLM, conf=0.74)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] 15. N. Kaloper and A. Linde: Cosmology vs. holography, hep-th/9904120. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In open universes the bound will be satisfied more comfortably than in flat ones [9].”
§ HYPER VERSION > 4.1 Anti-trapped surfaces
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] 9. W. Fischler and L. Susskind: Holography and cosmology, hep-th/9806039. JHEP07(1999)004 source
Section 3 (p. 6) says the holographic bound places no strong restriction on the equation of state in open universes at late times, and no lower limit on how slowly they may expand. Section 2 (p. 3) says the bound imposes a lower limit on the expansion rate in flat universes. This supports the comparison, though the paper notes that open universes behave like flat ones at early times. (LLM, conf=0.89)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Other proposals for cosmological entropy bounds [12,13,14,15,16] are based on the idea of defining a limited spatial region to which Bekenstein's bound can be JHEP07(1999)004 applied.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 5.3 Other cosmological entropy bounds
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [12] 12. R. Easther and D.A. Lowe: Holography, cosmology and the second law of thermody- namics, hep-th/9902088. source
The Introduction (p. 2) links the holographic principle to Bekenstein’s entropy bounds within a given volume. “The Story So Far” (p. 3) explains a cosmological proposal that limits the bound to regions smaller than the particle horizon, and “Flat Universe” (p. 6) discusses defining the region by the Hubble length. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites [13] 13. G. Veneziano: Pre-bangian origin of our entropy and time arrow, Phys. Lett. B 454 (1999) 22 [hep-th/9902126]. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The discussion on p. 2 defines a cosmological entropy bound using limited Hubble-size regions, supporting that part of the claim. But it derives the bound using the Bekenstein–Hawking black-hole entropy formula and distinguishes it from Bekenstein’s general bound; it does not describe applying Bekenstein’s bound to each region. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Supportedcites [14] 14. D. Bak and S.-J. Rey: Cosmic holography, hep-th/9902173. source
In “Cosmological Apparent Horizon and Gravitational Entropy” (page not specified), the paper proposes the apparent horizon as the boundary of a limited region and bounds the particle entropy inside it by the horizon’s gravitational entropy. This supports citing it as an example of a cosmological entropy-bound proposal based on a defined spatial region. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] 15. N. Kaloper and A. Linde: Cosmology vs. holography, hep-th/9904120. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] 16. R. Brustein: The generalized second law of thermodynamics in cosmology, gr-qc/9904061. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The entropy in the spatial interior of the apparent horizon [14] will not be bounded by its area in this region.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 5.3 Other cosmological entropy bounds
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [14] 14. D. Bak and S.-J. Rey: Cosmic holography, hep-th/9902173. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Cosmic Holography Tested Against FRW Unverse” (page unavailable), the paper reports that the entropy–area bound can be violated in closed-universe models. But it also finds the bound satisfied in open universes and some flat-universe cases. The unqualified claim that entropy inside the apparent horizon will not be bounded by its area overstates those findings. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“This leaves no choice but to conclude that the number of degrees of freedom in nature is fundamentally limited, as proposed in refs.[10,11].”
§ HYPER VERSION > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] 10. G. 't Hooft: Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity, gr-qc/9310026. source
- Supportedcites [11] 11. L. Susskind: The world as a hologram. J. Math. Phys. 36 (1995) 6377 [hep-th/9409089]. source
In “Counting Degrees of Freedom” (pp. 2–3), Susskind argues that a full description of nature requires fewer degrees of freedom than a three-dimensional Planck-scale lattice would imply. He describes a bound corresponding to a two-dimensional lattice at a region’s boundary. This supports the citing sentence’s attribution of the proposal, without treating it as an established fact. (LLM, conf=0.93)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using Friedmann's equation, H 2 = 8πρ 3 - k a 2 ,(4.6) one finds r AH = 3 8πρ , (4.7) where ρ is the energy density of matter.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This is exactly a quarter of the area of the apparent horizon.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] 20. C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne and J.A. Wheeler eds.: Gravitation. Freeman, New York 1973. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The interior of the apparent horizon can be treated as part of an oversized spherical star with an asymptotically flat exterior.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 19
- It may state two separate claims as one. 52
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“while other prescriptions [12,13,14,15,16] can be used for sufficiently small surfaces in a wide class of cosmological solutions.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 1.2 Outline
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [12] 12. R. Easther and D.A. Lowe: Holography, cosmology and the second law of thermody- namics, hep-th/9902088. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions (p. 11) propose a modified holographic bound for regions smaller than the Hubble volume, supporting the point about sufficiently small regions. But the proposal is specifically for the post-inflationary universe; the same section says a useful holographic bound cannot be deduced for closed universes. The claim’s ‘wide class of cosmological solutions’ is therefore broader than this paper establishes. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Partly supportedcites [13] 13. G. Veneziano: Pre-bangian origin of our entropy and time arrow, Phys. Lett. B 454 (1999) 22 [hep-th/9902126]. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The discussion on p. 2 proposes a Hubble entropy bound for fairly homogeneous cosmological situations, supporting the existence of an alternative prescription. It does not say that this prescription can be used for sufficiently small surfaces across a wide class of cosmological solutions. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites [14] 14. D. Bak and S.-J. Rey: Cosmic holography, hep-th/9902173. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Cosmic Holography Tested Against FRW Unverse” (page unavailable), the paper discusses an apparent-horizon prescription and reports compatibility with open universes and restricted classes of flat universes. It does not establish that other prescriptions work for sufficiently small surfaces across a wide class of cosmological solutions; it also reports failures for closed universes and typical post-big-bang inflationary models. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] 15. N. Kaloper and A. Linde: Cosmology vs. holography, hep-th/9904120. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] 16. R. Brustein: The generalized second law of thermodynamics in cosmology, gr-qc/9904061. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The Fischler-Susskind bound [9], for example, applies to universes which are not closed or recollapsing”
§ HYPER VERSION > 1.2 Outline
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] 9. W. Fischler and L. Susskind: Holography and cosmology, hep-th/9806039. JHEP07(1999)004 source
Section 3 (p. 6) says closed universes reach or threaten to violate the holographic bound, either while growing or during recollapse, and suggests they may be inconsistent with the holographic principle. It contrasts this with open universes, for which it continues to analyze the bound; Section 2 analyzes flat universes. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The validity of the bound was checked for flat universes with 0 ≤ γ ≤ 1 in ref. [9] and for -1 < γ < 0 in ref. [15].”
§ HYPER VERSION > 4.1 Anti-trapped surfaces
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] 9. W. Fischler and L. Susskind: Holography and cosmology, hep-th/9806039. JHEP07(1999)004 source
Section 2, “Flat Universe” (pp. 3–4), checks the holographic bound for flat cosmologies with an equation-of-state parameter γ. It concludes that violating the resulting bound would require sound to travel faster than light and gives a γ = 1 case that can saturate it. The sentence assigns the −1 < γ < 0 range to a different reference, so that range is not attributed to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] 15. N. Kaloper and A. Linde: Cosmology vs. holography, hep-th/9904120. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The FS bound cannot be applied here.It would continue to compare entropy and area of the particle horizon, and would be violated [9].”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [9] 9. W. Fischler and L. Susskind: Holography and cosmology, hep-th/9806039. JHEP07(1999)004 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Non Flat Universe” (p. 6), Fischler and Susskind compare entropy with horizon area and say the holographic bound in a positively curved closed universe will be saturated and then threatened with violation. They do not say that the FS bound cannot be applied in a “normal region”; instead, they apply it to analyze that universe. Their discussion also leaves open whether new behavior prevents a violation or such universes are inconsistent. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We will see that it passes the test, and more significantly, it just passes it.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 4. Cosmological tests
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In an attempt to violate the covariant entropy conjecture, we collapse a massive shell around the black hole.We find, however, that one cannot squeeze more entropy through L than a quarter of the area of B. Otherwise, L reaches the singularity before passing through the infalling shell entirely.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We tested the conjecture on cosmological solutions and inside gravitationally collapsing regions.We found, under the most adverse assumptions, that the bound can be saturated but not exceeded.”
§ HYPER VERSION > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This requires w/2 ≤ ∆τ dead , whence w max ≈ r 2 0 /2 M .(6.6) The maximum width of the shell is thus inversely proportional to its mass, and is always less than r 0 .”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The dominant energy condition holds for matter crossing L.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sec. 4 we tested the covariant entropy conjecture for anti-trapped and normal surfaces in cosmological space-times.We found that even the most non-adiabatic processes can only saturate, but not violate, the bound.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 6. Testing the conjecture in gravitational collapse
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At this time, the particle horizon covers two-thirds of the total entropy of the universe, which will be of order a max .Its area, however, is 4π(3/4) 3 a 2 max , which is much larger.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore we can be sure that at least two of the four null directions will be allowed.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is believed that all physically reasonable forms of matter satisfy the dominant energy condition [18,19], so we are not imposing a significant restriction.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] 18. S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis: The large scale stucture of space-time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1973. source
- Not matchedcites [19] 19. R.M. Wald: General Relativity. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1984.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the conjecture is manifestly time reversal invariant, its origin cannot be thermodynamic, but must be statistical.”
- Also stated in: § 1.2 Outline · plain
“Therefore the covariant bound must be linked to the statistical origin of entropy.”
§ HYPER VERSION > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 1.2 Outline · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the conditions set forth by Bekenstein are not satisfied, the bounds can easily be violated.The simplest example is a system undergoing gravitational collapse.Before it is destroyed on the black hole singularity, its surface area becomes arbitrarily small.Since the entropy cannot decrease, the bound is violated.”
§ HYPER VERSION > Bekenstein system.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the expansion of one pair of null congruences vanishes on B, there will be three allowed directions.If the expansion of both pairs vanishes on B, all four null directions will be allowed.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore the second system will not be swept out completely before the singularity is reached (see fig. 3).”
§ HYPER VERSION > 3.3 Light-sheet examples and first evidence
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the expansion θ jumps from -∞ to +∞ at a caustic.Then the expansion is positive, and we must stop following the light-ray.This is why caustics form the endpoints of the light-sheet.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We present evidence that the bound can be saturated, but not exceeded, in cosmological solutions and in the interior of black holes.”
- Also stated in: § 1.2 Outline · plain
“We find again that the bound can be saturated but not exceeded.”
§ HYPER VERSION > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 1.2 Outline · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Having decided to search for an entropy/area bound, our difficulty lies not in the quantitative formula, S ≤ A/4; this will remain unchanged.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 2. The conjecture
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Local energy is not well-defined in general relativity, and for global definitions of mass the space-time must possess an infinity [19,20].”
§ HYPER VERSION > 2. The conjecture
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19] 19. R.M. Wald: General Relativity. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1984.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] 20. C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne and J.A. Wheeler eds.: Gravitation. Freeman, New York 1973. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Bekenstein [1] has proposed the existence of a universal bound on the entropy S of any thermodynamic system of total energy M: S ≤ 2πRM .”
§ HYPER VERSION > 1.1 Bekenstein's bound
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] 1. J.D. Bekenstein: A universal upper bound on the entropy to energy ratio for bounded systems. Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 287.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conjecture the following entropy bound to be valid in all space-times admitted by Einstein's equation: let A be the area of any two-dimensional surface.Let L be a hypersurface generated by surface-orthogonal null geodesics with non-positive expansion.Let S be the entropy on L. Then S ≤ A/4.”
§ HYPER VERSION > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dominant energy condition holds for matter in the space-times considered.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The space-time is inextendible and contains no null or timelike (naked) singularities.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Area, on the other hand, can always be covariantly defined as the proper area of a surface.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 2. The conjecture
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After all, thermodynamic entropy is never T-invariant, and neither is the generalized second law of thermodynamics, which underlies Bekenstein's bound.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The future-directed light-sheet covers the same comoving volume as the past light-sheet.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 4.2 Normal surfaces
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Some universes, for example most closed universes, or a flat universe with negative cosmological constant [15], recollapse.Such universes necessarily contain trapped surfaces.But trapped regions can occur in any case by gravitational collapse.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] 15. N. Kaloper and A. Linde: Cosmology vs. holography, hep-th/9904120. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inflation ends on a spacelike hypersurface V at t = t reheat .At this time, all the entropy in the universe is produced through reheating.”
§ HYPER VERSION > Inflation.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A backward light-sheet of an area A specified at t = 2t Pl will be truncated at t = t Pl .It will sweep a volume of order Al Pl and the entropy bound will at most be saturated.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 4.1 Anti-trapped surfaces
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: At one Planck time after the singularity, there cannot have been more than one unit of entropy per Planck volume, up to a factor of order one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since the gravitational binding of a Bekenstein system is not strong enough to form a black hole, V will be contained in the causal past of L.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We will show below, purely from the point of view of Bekenstein's bound, that the interior of the apparent horizon is in fact the largest system for which Bekenstein's conditions can be considered to hold; for larger systems, inconsistencies arise.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 4.2 Normal surfaces
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since we claim that the conjecture is a universal law valid for all space-times satisfying Einstein's equations (with the dominant energy condition holding for matter), it must be valid for cosmological solutions in particular.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 4. Cosmological tests
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dominant energy condition holds for matter.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An anti-trapped surface B contains two past-directed light-sheets.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 4.1 Anti-trapped surfaces
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The covariant entropy bound may be saturated on the apparent horizon, but it will not be violated, no matter how hard we try to produce entropy.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the evolution is non-adiabatic, the entropy bound nevertheless predicts that S/A ≤ 1/4, implying that there is a limit on how rapidly the universe can produce entropy.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The exponent is non-positive, so the entropy/area ratio does not increase.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the vicinity of χ = 0 (and for closed universes, also on the opposite pole, near χ = π), the spherical surfaces will be normal.The larger spheres beyond the apparent horizon(s) will be anti-trapped.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The normal region contains a past-and a future-directed light-sheet.Both of them are ingoing, i.e. they are directed towards the center of the region at χ = 0 (or χ = π for the normal region near the opposite pole in closed universes).”
§ HYPER VERSION > 4.2 Normal surfaces
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore the spacelike projection theorem does not apply to any but the smallest of the surfaces B ⊂ V .The other spheres may be exponentially large, but the covariant conjecture does not relate their area to the enclosed entropy.”
§ HYPER VERSION > Inflation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most enthropic system is a saturated Bekenstein system, so they should convert all the matter into such systems.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 4.2 Normal surfaces
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The spacelike projection theorem is not T-invariant; it refers to past and future explicitly.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus the covariant entropy conjecture singles out the apparent horizon as a special surface.It marks the largest surface to which the spacelike projection theorem can possibly apply, and hence the region inside it is the largest region one can hope to treat as a Bekenstein system.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 5.1 A cosmological corollary
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We now turn to trapped surfaces, which occur not only in collapsing universes, but arise generally during gravitational collapse and inside black holes.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 6. Testing the conjecture in gravitational collapse
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This makes sense because in a collapsing region, loosely speaking, the direction in which surfaces are getting smaller is the future.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After the time t 1 , where t 1 < t turnaround , the future-directed light-sheet of the apparent horizon will have another boundary, namely on the future singularity of the space-time.Thus the conditions for the spacelike projection theorem, and the JHEP07(1999)004 corollary it implies, are no longer met.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 5.3 Other cosmological entropy bounds
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any light-rays that do not end on caustics will follow an irregular path through the object similar to random walk.Since they waste affine time on covering angular directions, they may not proceed far into the object before the singularity is reached.Thus it may well be impossible for a light-sheet to penetrate through a collapsing, highly entropic system far enough to sample excessive entropy.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inhomogeneities that break spherical symmetry will deflect the rays in the light-sheet and cause dents in their spherical cross-sections.Such dents will develop into “angular” caustics.At any caustic, the light-sheet ends, because the expansion becomes positive (sec.3.2).”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“But Kaloper and Linde [15] have shown that this bound is exceeded in flat, adiabatic FRW universes with an arbitrarily small but non-vanishing negative cosmological constant.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 5.3 Other cosmological entropy bounds
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] 15. N. Kaloper and A. Linde: Cosmology vs. holography, hep-th/9904120. source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The FS hypersurface will often be one of them, but not always.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 5.2 The Fischler-Susskind bound
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This makes it more difficult for a light-sheet to penetrate the system completely, unless it originates near the beginning of the collapse, when the area is still large.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the role of the corollary is to define the range of validity of Bekenstein's entropy/area bound in cosmological solutions.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 5.1 A cosmological corollary
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Strictly, the Oppenheimer-Snyder solution describes a dust ball at zero temperature.Since it also must be exactly homogeneous, it contains not even the usual positional entropy equal to the particle number.Thus the entropy is zero.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] 20. C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne and J.A. Wheeler eds.: Gravitation. Freeman, New York 1973. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As the turnaround time is approached, the apparent horizon moves out to spatial infinity [15], and the enclosed volume grows without bound.The entropy density is constant, and the area grows more slowly than the volume.Thus the entropy eventually exceeds the Bak-Rey bound.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 5.3 Other cosmological entropy bounds
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] 15. N. Kaloper and A. Linde: Cosmology vs. holography, hep-th/9904120. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Light-rays emitted from the surface of the star when it is inside its gravitational radius can traverse the interior entirely.This is not a violation of the covariant entropy bound because a collapsing dust star does not have much entropy.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 6.1 Light-sheet penetration into collapsing systems
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bekenstein has shown that the entropy of a thermodynamic system with limited self-gravity is bounded by its area.”
§ HYPER VERSION > Additional information
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It follows from, but is not equivalent to, the covariant JHEP07(1999)004 entropy bound.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 5.1 A cosmological corollary
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trapped surfaces, for example, have light-sheets on both sides, but only future-directed ones.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The covariant bound remains valid, because it applies only to the future-directed null hypersurfaces, which are soon truncated by the singularity.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The FS hypersurface would go to the past and would pick up nearly half of the total entropy, so the FS bound cannot be used in this region.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For η = χ > 2π/3 the particle horizon ends on normal, rather than anti-trapped spheres.It has entered a normal region surrounding the North pole and bounded by a different apparent horizon, η = 2(πχ).”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the future-directed light-sheet is truncated by the future singularity, and the past-directed light-sheets are truncated by the past singularity, the comoving volume swept out by any of these light-sheet grows only like the area as one moves further along the apparent horizon.Thus there is no contradiction with the covariant bound.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 5.3 Other cosmological entropy bounds
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the corollary is far less general than the covariant conjecture, which associates at least two hypersurfaces with any surface in any space-time, and bounds the entropy on those hypersurfaces.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 5.1 A cosmological corollary
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The covariant entropy conjecture states that the entropy on the future-directed ingoing light-sheet, as well as the two past-directed light-sheets of the apparent horizon will each be less than A/4.”
§ HYPER VERSION > 5.3 Other cosmological entropy bounds
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“L has zero expansion and defines the black hole horizon as long as no additional matter falls in.When L does encounter matter, the expansion becomes negative and L collapses to r = 0 within a finite affine time.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By definition, highly enthropic systems undergoing gravitational collapse are very irregular internally and contain strong small scale density perturbations.This will make the collapse inhomogeneous, with some regions reaching the singularity after a shorter proper time than other regions.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore the FS bound and the covariant bound should both be satisfied.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We take this as strong evidence in favor of the entropy bound we propose.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
boostedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The covariant entropy bound, on the other hand, applies even to surfaces in collapsing regions, or on cosmological scales.”
§ HYPER VERSION > JHEP07(1999)004
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The dominant energy condition holds for matter in the space-times considered.
“we will require the dominant energy condition to hold: for all timelike v a , T ab v a v b ≥ 0 and T ab v a is a non-spacelike vector.”
“The dominant energy condition, which we are assuming, implies that the null convergence condition will hold.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The space-time is inextendible and contains no null or timelike (naked) singularities.
“We should also require that the space-time is inextendible and contains no null or timelike (”
“These conditions are believed to hold in any physical space-time, so we shall not spell them out below.”
The paper relies on this without support.
For a system contained in a spherical volume, gravitational stability requires M ≤ R/2.
“For a system contained in a spherical volume, gravitational stability requires that M ≤ R/2.”
The paper relies on this without support.
No fully general entropy bound proposal had been formulated prior to this work.
“no fully general proposal has yet been formulated.”
The paper relies on this without support.
At one Planck time after the singularity, there cannot have been more than one unit of entropy per Planck volume, up to a factor of order one.
“At this time, there cannot have been more than one unit of entropy per Planck volume, up to a factor of order one.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Inflation cannot produce more than one unit of entropy per Planck volume.
“Because inflation cannot produce more than one unit of entropy per Planck volume”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The space-time is inextendible.
“Since we are always assuming that the space-time is inextendible and that no naked singularities are present”
The authors state this as an assumption.
No naked singularities are present.
“Since we are always assuming that the space-time is inextendible and that no naked singularities are present”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The interior of the apparent horizon can be treated as part of an oversized spherical star with an asymptotically flat exterior.
“we can follow ref.[14] and treat the interior of the apparent horizon as part of an oversized spherical star.(We are thus pretending that somewhere beyond the apparent horizon, the space-time may become asymptotically flat and empty.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The dominant energy condition holds for matter.
“with the dominant energy condition holding for matter”
The paper relies on this without support.
The second law of thermodynamics holds.
“Then the second law of thermodynamics implies that the entropy on V , S V , cannot exceed the entropy on L, S L .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Positivity of energy is assumed as a condition for the covariant entropy bound.
“While we have formally JHEP07(1999)004 assumed the positivity of energy as a condition for the covariant entropy bound, we have argued in sec. 2 that the validity of the bound may well extend to space-times with a negative cosmological constant.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The generalized second law of thermodynamics holds.
“The generalized second law of thermodynamics guarantees that the entropy conjecture will hold on this light-sheet, since A 4 = S bh ≥ S in .(6.2)”
The paper relies on this without support.
The dominant energy condition holds for matter crossing L.
“The first term on the right hand side is non-positive, and the dominant energy condition is sufficient to ensure that the second term is also non-positive.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“More specifically, given a spacelike region Σ with boundary ∂ Σ, the amount of entropy that can pass through an appropriately constructed inward-pointing null surface emanating from the boundary is given by the area of ∂ Σ as measured in Planck units.”
From Spontaneous inflation and the origin of the arrow of time (2004) · cites this paper as [63]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A concrete consequence of the holographic principle is Bousso's covariant entropy bound, which places a limit on the entropy that can be contained within a region [63].”
From Spontaneous inflation and the origin of the arrow of time (2004) · cites this paper as [63]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citations
Cites
Particle creation by black holes
Hawking, S. W. (1975) · Communications In Mathematical Physics · doi:10.1007/bf02345020 · Cited by 13,106 · cited 1×
“The generalized second law of thermodynamics [2–5] requires that the entropy of the system should not exceed the entropy of the radiation emitted by the black hole while relaxing to its original size; this radiation entropy can be estimated [6, 7].”
BackgroundBekenstein, J. D. (1973) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.7.2333 · Cited by 7,555
Wald, R. M. (1984) · Cited by 6,274
Susskind, L. (1995) · Journal of Mathematical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.531249 · Cited by 4,085
Susskind, L. (1994) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/9409089 · Cited by 4,085
The four laws of black hole mechanics
Bardeen, J. M., Carter, B., & Hawking, S. W. (1973) · Communications in Mathematical Physics · doi:10.1007/bf01645742 · Cited by 3,932
Generalized second law of thermodynamics in black-hole physics
Bekenstein, J. D. (1974) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.9.3292 · Cited by 2,166
Black holes and the second law
Bekenstein, J. D. (1972) · Lettere Al Nuovo Cimento Series 2 · doi:10.1007/bf02757029 · Cited by 1,485
Universal upper bound on the entropy-to-energy ratio for bounded systems
Bekenstein, J. D. (1981) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.23.287 · Cited by 1,182
Bekenstein, J. D. (2019) · WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks · doi:10.1142/9789811203961_0023 · Cited by 747
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 601–700 of 853
The Geometry and Flow of Informational Time
Neukart, F. (2025) · Universe · doi:10.3390/universe12010002 · Cited by 4
Virtual Reality in the World of HologramsPreprint
Fabinger, M. (2001) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/0104111 · Cited by 4
Towards bit threads in general gravitational spacetimes
Du, D.-H., & Sun, J.-R. (2024) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep08(2024)016 · Cited by 4
Maziashvili, M. (2009) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.08.013 · Cited by 5
A New Spin on Quantum GravityPreprint
Jackson, M. G., & Hogan, C. J. (2007) · Cited by 4
On the hydrogen atom in the holographic universe
Jalalzadeh, S., Nejad, S. A., & Moniz, P. V. (2021) · Physica Scripta · doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ac3958 · Cited by 4
Raphael Bousso, A., & Tabor, E. (2025) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep06(2025)240 · Cited by 9
Holographic Principle and the Surface of Last Scatter
Frampton, P. H. (2010) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/259/1/012015 · Cited by 4
Black hole fragmentation and holography
Cadoni, M. (2004) · Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · doi:10.1103/physrevd.69.084021 · Cited by 4
Rips and regular future scenario with holographic dark energy: a comprehensive look
Brevik, I., Khlopov, M., Odintsov, S. D., Timoshkin, A. V., & Trivedi, O. (2024) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13601-z · Cited by 5
Analysis on a general class of holographic type dark energy models
Huang, Z.-P., & Wu, Y.-L. (2012) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/07/035 · Cited by 7
Comments on the entropic gravity proposal
Bhattacharya, S., Charalambous, P., Tomaras, T. N., & Toumbas, N. (2018) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6107-3 · Cited by 5
Engelhardt, N., & Fischetti, S. (2017) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.126012 · Cited by 6
Lehnert, K. (2026) · Fortschritte der Physik · doi:10.1002/prop.70073 · Cited by 15
Entropic considerations on the Universe and Universe-black hole systems
Hadi, H., Darabi, F., & Heydarzade, Y. (2020) · Europhysics Letters (EPL) · doi:10.1209/0295-5075/131/59001 · Cited by 5
Nouicer, K. (2011) · International Journal of Modern Physics D · doi:10.1142/s0218271811018743 · Cited by 4
Sakharov’s Induced Gravity and the Poincaré Gauge Theory
Чайчиан, М., Oksanen, M., & Tureanu, A. (2019) · WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks · doi:10.1142/9789811203961_0021 · Cited by 7
The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of EverythingPreprint
Redford, J. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708 · Cited by 4
Holography with Timelike Bulk Hypersurfaces
(2003) · Cited by 4
Струмиа, А., & Tetradis, N. (2008) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.08.061 · Cited by 4
Quintessence scalar field of Kaniadakis holographic dark energy model with statefinder analysis
Sharma, U. K., Kumar, P. S., & Pankaj (2023) · International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics · doi:10.1142/s021988782450004x · Cited by 3
Unitarity and the information problem in an explicit model of black hole evaporation
Schindler, J., Frangipane, E., & Aguirre, A. (2021) · Classical and Quantum Gravity · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/abdf25 · Cited by 5
The Entangled Informational Universe
Denis, O. (2022) · Physical Science International Journal · doi:10.9734/psij/2022/v26i430317 · Cited by 2
Baisri, P., Gumjudpai, B., Kritpetch, C., et al. (2023) · Physics of the Dark Universe · doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101251 · Cited by 3
A Note on Holographic Dark Energy with Varying c 2 Term
(2017) · doi:10.1007/s10773-017-3329-3 · Cited by 3
A violation of the covariant entropy bound?
Masoumi, A., & Mathur, S. D. (2015) · Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.084058 · Cited by 3
Deformed Quantum Field Theory, Thermodynamics at Low and High Energies, and Gravity. IPreprint
Shalyt-Margolin, A. (2010) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1003.4523 · Cited by 3
The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of EverythingPreprint
Redford, J. (2015) · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.1312729.v1 · Cited by 3
Raphael Bousso, A. (2025) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/6f9b-3jmx · Cited by 15
Cosmological constraints from UV/IR mixing
(2026) · doi:10.1007/jhep02(2026)035 · Cited by 3
Entanglement entropy with a time-dependent Hamiltonian
Sivaramakrishnan, A. (2018) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.066003 · Cited by 3
Rolph, A. (2022) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep08(2022)142 · Cited by 5
D-bound and the Bekenstein bound for the surrounded Vaidya black hole
Hadi, H., Darabi, F., Atazadeh, K., & Heydarzade, Y. (2020) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08699-w · Cited by 3
Quantum fluctuations of the compact phase space cosmology
Artigas, D., Crowe, S., & B, J. M. A. (2021) · Classical and Quantum Gravity · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/abe83d · Cited by 4
Regular Article - Theoretical Physics
Stefano Catani, B., Fabre, I., Grazzini, M., & Kallweit, S. (2021) · The European Physical Journal C · Cited by 3
Toward a consistent definition of holographic entanglement entropy in de Sitter space
Ruan, S.-M., & Suzuki, Y.-K. (2026) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep01(2026)044 · Cited by 5
Entanglement entropy and gravity/condensed matter correspondence
Tadashi Takayanagi, B. (2014) · General Relativity and Gravitation · doi:10.1007/s10714-014-1693-3 · Cited by 3
Generalized covariant entropy bound in Einstein gravity with quadratic curvature corrections
Zhu, H., & Jiang, J. (2024) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep05(2024)286 · Cited by 3
Local Lorentz covariance in finite-dimensional local quantum physics
Raasakka, M. (2017) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.086023 · Cited by 3
Overlapping qubits from non-isometric maps and de Sitter tensor networks
Cao, C., Chemissany, W. A., Jahn, A., & Zimborás, Z. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-55463-9 · Cited by 3
State of matter at high density and entropy bounds
(2015) · doi:10.1142/s0218271815440162 · Cited by 3
Area spectrum of horizon and black hole entropy
Tanaka, T., & Tamaki, T. (2013) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2314-0 · Cited by 3
Black hole production, eternal inflation, and information in quasi-de Sitter space
Seo, M. (2022) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/11/005 · Cited by 6
Bekenstein Bound and Non-Commutative Canonical Variables
Scardigli, F. (2022) · Universe · doi:10.3390/universe8120645 · Cited by 3
Entropy bounds and holographic dark energy: Conflicts and consensus
Manoharan, M. T. (2025) · Annals of Physics · doi:10.1016/j.aop.2025.170231 · Cited by 3
Holography with timelike bulk hypersurfaces
(2003) · doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/09/069 · Cited by 3
Holography, entropy and extra dimensions
Hong, D. K., & Hsu, S. D. H. (2004) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.04.044 · Cited by 3
Thermodynamics of the arbitrary dimensional FRW universe: Joule-Thomson expansion
Abdusattar, H., Kong, S., Omar, M., et al. (2025) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.117126 · Cited by 3
How low can vacuum energy go when your fields are finite-dimensional?
Cao, C., Chatwin-Davies, A., & Singh, A. (2019) · International Journal of Modern Physics D · doi:10.1142/s0218271819440061 · Cited by 4
Holographic Weyl entropy bounds
(2004) · doi:10.1103/physrevd.70.044001 · Cited by 3
Howard, E. M. (2016) · Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics · doi:10.4236/jamp.2016.412220 · Cited by 2
de Sitter Connectivity from Holographic Entanglement
Franken, V. (2024) · Corfu Summer Institute School and Workshops on Elementary Particle Physics and Gravity (CORFU) · doi:10.22323/1.463.0225 · Cited by 2
A Non-Singular Closed Bouncing Universe Without Violation of Null Energy Condition
Ahmed, N., Kamel, T. M., & Nouh, M. I. (2022) · Revista Mexicana de Astronomía y Astrofísica · doi:10.22201/ia.01851101p.2022.58.02.07 · Cited by 2
Quantum Mechanics, Gravity, and the Multiverse
(2012) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1205.2675 · Cited by 2
Stochastic inflation and entropy bound in de Sitter spacetime
Tajima, H., & Nambu, Y. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.106009 · Cited by 4
Multiversal entropy and information conservation in black hole nucleated baby universes
Pourhassan, B. (2025) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.117160 · Cited by 2
The Dark Side of the Entangled Informational Universe
Denis, O. (2022) · Physical Science International Journal · doi:10.9734/psij/2022/v26i6750 · Cited by 2
Recovering semiclassical Einstein’s equation using generalized entropy
Kumar, N. (2023) · General Relativity and Gravitation · doi:10.1007/s10714-023-03172-x · Cited by 3
Constraints on physical computers in holographic spacetimes
Kubicki, A. M., May, A., & Pérez-Garcı́a, D. (2024) · SciPost Physics · doi:10.21468/scipostphys.16.1.024 · Cited by 5
Bekenstein bound for approximately local charged states
Hollands, S., & Longo, R. (2025) · Reviews in Mathematical Physics · doi:10.1142/s0129055x24610087 · Cited by 7
Aspects of String Motion in Time-Dependent Backgrounds
Rabinovici, E. (2003) · Annales Henri Poincaré · doi:10.1007/s00023-003-0913-2 · Cited by 2
Holographic phenomenology via overlapping degrees of freedom
Friedrich, O., Cao, C., Carroll, S. M., Cheng, G., & Singh, A. (2024) · Classical and Quantum Gravity · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad6e4d · Cited by 2
Quantum focusing conjecture in two-dimensional evaporating black holes
Ishibashi, A., Matsuo, Y., & Tanaka, A. (2024) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep09(2024)126 · Cited by 2
Probable Entropic Nature of Gravity in Ultraviolet and Infrared Limits—Part I: An Ultraviolet Case
Shalyt-Margolin, A. (2013) · Advances in High Energy Physics · doi:10.1155/2013/384084 · Cited by 2
D-Sitter Space: Causal Structure, Thermodynamics, and Entropy
Silverstein, E. M. (2003) · doi:10.2172/813332 · Cited by 2
Remarks on Bousso$apos$s covariant entropy bound
(2002) · doi:10.1088/0264-9381/19/10/306 · Cited by 2
The Emergent Entangled Informational Universe
Denis, O. (2023) · Physical Science International Journal · doi:10.9734/psij/2023/v27i1777 · Cited by 2
Monsters, Black Holes and Entropy
Hsu, S. D. H. (2014) · Fundamental theories of physics · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10852-0_4 · Cited by 2
Taub-NUT Spacetime in the (A)dS/CFT and M-Theory
Clarkson, R. (2005) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo) · Cited by 2
Quantum-bias cosmology: Acceleration from holographic information capacity
Butcher, L. M. (2019) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.063511 · Cited by 2
Gravity as a thermodynamic phenomenonPreprint
Moustos, D. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1701.08967 · Cited by 3
Realize Emergent Gravity to Generic Situations
An, Y., & Cheng, P. (2021) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09581-z · Cited by 4
Yu, H., & Li, J. (2023) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12320-1 · Cited by 1
Minimum Spacetime Length and the Thermodynamics of Spacetime
Rossi, V., Cacciatori, S. L., & Pesci, A. (2026) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e28010097 · Cited by 1
Operational view of the holographic information bound
(2010) · doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.124028 · Cited by 1
A domain wall bound on anti-de Sitter vacua
(2026) · doi:10.21468/scipostphys.20.6.157 · Cited by 1
(2022) · doi:10.3390/sym14010126 · Cited by 1
Hilbert Bundles and Holographic Space–Time Models
Banks, T. (2025) · Astronomy · doi:10.3390/astronomy4020007 · Cited by 2
Violation of the KSS Bound in Holographic Bjorken-Flow
(2017) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.09642 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Bousso, R.
- Venue
- Journal of High Energy Physics
- Published
- 1999-07-02
- Volume
- 1999
- Issue
- 07
- Pages
- 004-004
- ISSN
- 1029-8479 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2163851871
- Cited by
- 850
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 30
- FWCI
- 19.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of High Energy Physics (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Black Holes and Theoretical Physics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
- Keywords
- holographic entropy bound, Bekenstein bound, black hole entropy, cosmological solutions, null geodesics, time-reversal invariance, degrees of freedom, quantum gravity
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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