Does the HM mechanism work in string theory?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The correspondence principle offers a unique opportunity to test the Horowitz and Maldacena mechanism at the correspondence point “the centre of mass energies around (Ms/(gs)2)”. First by using the Horowitz and Maldacena proposal, the black hole final state for closed strings is studied and the entropy of these states is calculated. Then, to consider the closed string states, a copy of the original Hilbert space is constructed with a set of creation–annihilation operators that have the same commutation properties as the original ones. The total Hilbert space is the tensor product of the two spaces Hright ⊗ Hleft, where in this case Hleft/right denote the physical quantum state space of the closed string. It is shown that closed string states can be represented by a maximally entangled two-mode squeezed state of the left and right spaces of closed string. Also, the entropy for these string states is calculated. It is found that black hole entropy matches the closed string entropy at transition point. This means that our result is consistent with correspondence principle and thus HM mechanism in string theory works. Consequently the unitarity of the black hole in string theory can be reconciled. However Gottesman and Preskill point out that, in this scenario, departures from unitarity can arise due to interactions between the collapsing body and the infalling Hawking radiation inside the event horizon and information can be lost. By extending the Gottesman and Preskill method to string theory, the amount of information transformation from the matter to the state of outgoing Hagedorn radiation for closed strings is obtained. It is observed that information is lost for closed strings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".