MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055339456 · doi:10.1007/jhep05(2014)095

The capacity of black holes to transmit quantum information

2014· article· en· W2055339456 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Electrodynamics and Casimir Effect
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmplitude damping channelQuantum channelQuantum capacityClassical capacityBlack hole (networking)Quantum informationQuantum entanglementQuantumQuantum networkBlack hole complementarity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the properties of the quantum information transmission channel that emerges from the quantum dynamics of particles interacting with a black hole horizon. We calculate the quantum channel capacity in two limiting cases where a single-letter capacity is known to exist: the limit of perfectly reflecting and perfectly absorbing black holes. We find that the perfectly reflecting black hole channel is closely related to the Unruh channel and that its capacity is non-vanishing, allowing for the perfect reconstruction of quantum information outside of the black hole horizon. We also find that the complementary channel (transmitting entanglement behind the horizon) is entanglement-breaking in this case, with vanishing capacity. We then calculate the quantum capacity of the black hole channel in the limit of a perfectly absorbing black hole and find that this capacity vanishes, while the capacity of the complementary channel is non-vanishing instead. Rather than inviting a new crisis for quantum physics, this finding instead is in accordance with the quantum no-cloning theorem, because it guarantees that there are no space-like surfaces that contain both the sender’s quantum state and the receiver’s reconstructed quantum state.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicQuantum Electrodynamics and Casimir EffectFrench-language works237,207