Entangled pairs in evaporating black holes without event horizons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigations into Hawking radiation often assume a black hole model featuring an event horizon, despite the growing consensus that such causal structures may not exist in nature. While this assumption is not crucial for deriving the local properties of radiation at future null infinity, it plays a significant role in discussions about Hawking partners---the field modes that purify Hawking radiation. This article aims to explore the definition and fate of Hawking partners in black hole scenarios where semiclassical mass loss due to Hawking radiation is considered. Our analysis avoids the assumption of event horizons and instead focuses on collapse processes that feature a trapped region bounded by a dynamical horizon. We derive the form of the partners, accounting for the effects of backscattering. Furthermore, using these results and mild assumptions, we find that Hawking partners cannot ``leak'' out of the dynamical horizon to partially purify the Hawking radiation in the regime where general relativity coexists semiclassically with quantum field theory. This finding emphasizes the necessity for new physics, such as quantum gravity, to resolve the final fate of information.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".