Paper detail

Black hole evaporation and semiclassicality at large D

Black holes of sufficiently large initial radius are expected to be well described by a semiclassical analysis at least until half of their initial mass has evaporated away. For a small number of spacetime dimensions, this holds as long as the black hole is parametrically larger than the Planck length. In that case, curvatures are small and backreaction onto geometry is expected to be well described by a time-dependent classical metric. We point out that at large $D$, small curvature is insufficient to guarantee a valid semiclassical description of black holes. Instead, the strongest bounds come from demanding that the rate of change of the geometry is small and that black holes scramble information faster than they evaporate. This is a consequence of the enormous power of Hawking radiation in $D$-dimensions due to the large available phase space and the resulting minuscule evaporation times. Asymptotically, only black holes with entropies $S \geq D^{D+3} \log D$ are semiclassical. We comment on implications for realistic quantum gravity models in $D \leq 26$ as well as relations to bounds on theories with a large number of gravitationally interacting light species.

preprint2019arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.