Paper detail

What does strong subadditivity tell us about black holes?

It has been argued that small corrections to evolution arising from non-geometric effects can resolve the information paradox. We can get such effects, for example, from subleading saddle points in the Euclidean path integral. But an inequality derived in 2009 using strong sub-additivity showed that such corrections {\it cannot} solve the problem. As a result we sharpen the original Hawking puzzle: we must either have (A) new (nonlocal) physics or (B) construct hair at the horizon. We get correspondingly different approaches to resolving the AMPS puzzle. Traditional complementarity assumes (A); here we require that the AMPS experiment measures the correct vacuum entanglement of Hawking modes, and invoke nonlocal $A=R_B$ type effects to obtain unitarity of radiation. Fuzzball complementarity is in category (B); here the AMPS measurement is outside the validity of the approximation required to obtain the complementary description, and a effective regular horizon arises only for freely infalling observers with energies $E\gg T$.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

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 map preview

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.