Firewalls and flat mirrors: An alternative to the AMPS experiment which evades the Harlow-Hayden obstacle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If quantum gravity does not lead to a breakdown of predictability, then Almheiri-Marolf-Polchinski-Sully (AMPS) have argued that an observer falling into a black hole can perform an experiment which verifies a violation of entanglement monogamy — that late time Hawking radiation is maximally entangled with early time Hawking radiation and also with in-falling radiation — something impossible in quantum field theory. However, as pointed out by Hayden and Harlow, this experiment is infeasible, as the time required to perform the experiment is almost certainly longer than the lifetime of the black hole. Here we propose an alternative firewall experiment which could actually be performed within the black hole’s lifetime. The alternative experiment involves forming an entangled black hole in which the unscrambling of information is precomputed on a quantum memory prior to the creation of the black hole and without acting on the matter which forms the black hole or emerges from it. This would allow an observer near a black hole to signal faster than light. As another application of our precomputing strategy, we show how one can produce entangled black holes which acts like “flat mirrors”, in the sense that information comes out almost instantly (as in the Hayden-Preskill scenario), but also emerge unscrambled, so that it can actually be observed instantly as well. Finally, we prove that a black hole in thermal equilibrium with its own radiation, is uncorrelated with this radiation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".