A self-consistency check for unitary propagation of Hawking quanta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The black hole information paradox presumes that quantum field theory in curved space–time can provide unitary propagation from a near-horizon mode to an asymptotic Hawking quantum. Instead of invoking conjectural quantum-gravity effects to modify such an assumption, we propose a self-consistency check. We establish an analogy to Feynman’s analysis of a double-slit experiment. Feynman showed that unitary propagation of the interfering particles, namely ignoring the entanglement with the double-slit, becomes an arbitrarily reliable assumption when the screen upon which the interference pattern is projected is infinitely far away. We argue for an analogous self-consistency check for quantum field theory in curved space–time. We apply it to the propagation of Hawking quanta and test whether ignoring the entanglement with the geometry also becomes arbitrarily reliable in the limit of a large black hole. We present curious results to suggest a negative answer, and we discuss how this loss of naive unitarity in QFT might be related to a solution of the paradox based on the soft-hair-memory effect.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".