Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Quantum Information Bound on the Energy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Quantum matter violates the classical Penrose inequality, so the paper proposes replacing area with lightsheet generalized entropy in a Quantum Penrose Inequality.

desk verdict A serious, well-crafted conjecture paper: a new semiclassical counterexample to the classical Penrose inequality, a concrete replacement, and one honestly-labeled open loophole that deserves scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02001 v1 pith:GWXFDCEE submitted 2019-09-04 hep-th gr-qc

Raphael Bousso , Arvin Shahbazi-Moghaddam , Marija Tomasevic This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qc
keywords quantumPenroseinequalitygeneralizedentropytrappedsurfaceslightsheetsemiclassicalgravityblackholeevaporationweakcosmiccensorshipBoulwarestate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the classical Penrose inequality—mass bounded below by trapped-surface area—cannot survive quantum matter. It exhibits a Boulware-like state outside a Schwarzschild black hole whose negative near-horizon energy cancels an O(1) fraction of the mass, violating the inequality by a classical amount. To replace it, the authors define a Quantum Penrose Inequality (QPI) in which the area is replaced by the generalized entropy $S_{\rm gen}$ of the future-outgoing lightsheet of a quantum marginally trapped surface: $m \geq \sqrt{\hbar S_{\rm gen}[L]/(4\pi G)}$. They show the QPI survives several tests, including the counterexample, near-saturation constructions, a derivation from the generalized second law in the perturbative regime, and a failed counterexample involving negative energy that misses the lightsheet. A correct QPI would establish that quantum information, not just geometry, bounds the total energy of a spacetime.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the generalized entropy $S_{\rm gen}[\sigma] = A[\sigma]/(4G\hbar) + S_{\rm out} + \cdots$, with the field entropy $S_{\rm out}$ defined on one side of a Cauchy-splitting surface and divergent terms cancelled by geometric counterterms; its shape derivative defines the quantum expansion $\Theta[\sigma;y]$, and surfaces with $\Theta_+ = 0$, $\Theta_- \leq 0$ are quantum marginally trapped. The future-outgoing lightsheet $L(\mu_Q) = \dot{OW}(\mu_Q) - I^-(OW(\mu_Q))$ of $\mu_Q$ is the hypersurface on which generalized entropy is evaluated, and its non-standard state carries the information that makes the inequality hold. The Q-screen (a hypersurface foliated by quantum marginally trapped surfaces) and the conjectured quantum focusing condition supply the monotonicity—a generalized second law—that plays the role the area theorem played in heuristics for the classical inequality.

What would settle it

Perform a direct evaluation of $S_{\rm gen}[L(\mu_Q)]$ in the Boulware-like counterexample with a finite regulator: if the resulting generalized entropy is not bounded by $4\pi G m^2/\hbar$, or if its value depends on the cutoff after counterterm subtraction, the QPI fails. A numerical computation of the lightsheet entropy for a collapsing null shell in the Unruh state would already test the predicted logarithmic gap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central proposal is Eq. (4.11): in an asymptotically flat spacetime, the total mass at spatial infinity satisfies $m \geq \sqrt{\hbar S_{\rm gen}[L(\mu_Q)]/(4\pi G)}$, where $\mu_Q$ is a quantum marginally trapped surface homologous to spatial infinity and with minimal generalized entropy on some Cauchy surface of its outer wedge, and $S_{\rm gen}[L]$ is the generalized entropy evaluated on the future-outgoing lightsheet generated by the outgoing null congruence from $\mu_Q$. The replacement of area by generalized entropy, and of classical trapped surfaces by quantum trapped surfaces, is forced by the counterexample of Sec. 3: a Boulware-like depletion of the thermal atmosphere near the horizon contributes negative energy of order $-(l_P/d_c)^2 M$, lowering the ADM mass while leaving the trapped-surface area essentially unchanged. The paper further argues that alternative formulations fail: using generalized entropy on Cauchy surfaces reaching infinity is polluted by soft modes; using only the area of quantum trapped surfaces cannot evade the counterexample; and subtracting a global entropy is defeated by a star with large entropy at essentially no mass cost. The QPI is designed so that the entropy on the lightsheet captures the negative-energy modes, knows about later infalling matter through the generalized second law, and avoids matter that never crosses the lightsheet.

Load-bearing premise

The entire bound rests on the assumption that the generalized entropy of the lightsheet is finite and unambiguous: if the divergences in the quantum-field entropy do not cancel against the geometric counterterms as expected, then $S_{\rm gen}[L]$ has no well-defined value and the inequality $m \geq \sqrt{\hbar S_{\rm gen}[L]/(4\pi G)}$ is not a precise statement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the classical limit $\hbar \to 0$, $4G\hbar S_{\rm gen}[L] \to A[\mu_Q]$ and the QPI reduces to the classical Penrose inequality.
  • In the non-gravitational limit $G \to 0$, the QPI implies the monotonicity of relative entropy from the generalized second law, and a positive-energy condition for excitations kept away from the black hole.
  • For a newly formed Schwarzschild black hole in the Unruh state, the QPI holds with a logarithmic gap $\sim \log(R/l_P)$; a time-reversed state saturates it up to $O(1)$ area uncertainty.
  • Whenever all matter outside $\mu_Q$ crosses its lightsheet, the perturbative derivation from the generalized second law shows the QPI is automatically satisfied, including for the Boulware-like counterexample.
  • Because the classical Penrose inequality was proposed as a test of weak cosmic censorship, the QPI offers a necessary condition for a quantum version of cosmic censorship, with the known mild violations suggesting such a quantum formulation is needed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: If the finiteness of $S_{\rm gen}[L]$ is established, the QPI can be read as a covariant information-theoretic bound: the total energy of any asymptotically flat spacetime is controlled by the entanglement structure of a single null hypersurface, not by the geometry of a spatial slice.
  • Editorial inference: The counterexample's parametric control ($n_{\rm total} \sim R^2/d_c^2$ modes, each contributing $-\hbar/R$ to the Killing energy) suggests a general QFT statement—localized depletion of a thermal atmosphere near a horizon produces negative energy whose magnitude is bounded by the number of modes—that may be provable independently of gravity.
  • Editorial inference: The scrambling-time window of the lightsheet implies the QPI is insensitive to matter entering later than $\sim R \log(R/l_P)$; a sharp version of the conjecture would quantify how much later-infalling negative energy can be added before the state becomes transplanckian and non-semiclassical.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether the classical Penrose inequality (CPI) survives in semiclassical gravity. It constructs a Boulware-like state near a Schwarzschild black hole whose negative near-horizon energy lowers the ADM mass by an O(1) fraction while leaving the classical trapped-surface area essentially unchanged, thereby violating the CPI. It then proposes a Quantum Penrose Inequality (QPI), Eq. (4.11), in which the area of a quantum marginally trapped surface is replaced by 4Gℏ times the generalized entropy of its future-outgoing lightsheet. The proposal is tested in several settings: a black hole in the Unruh state, a near-saturating time-reversed state, and a perturbative regime where QPI is derived from the generalized second law (GSL). The paper also discusses negative-energy matter that misses the lightsheet, rules out several alternative formulations, extends the conjecture to AdS, and analyzes classical and non-gravitational limits.

Significance. If the QPI holds, it is a substantial new conjecture linking quantum information, specifically generalized entropy on lights sheets, to the positive mass theorem. The paper's explicit counterexample to the classical Penrose inequality is interesting, and the way QPI evades it through lightsheet generalized entropy is nontrivial and falsifiable. The reduction of QPI to the GSL in the perturbative regime is a valuable consistency check, not a circular step, because the GSL is treated as an external benchmark. The manuscript is unusually honest in highlighting its own open points, and the systematic exclusion of alternative formulations adds to the paper's usefulness. The main weaknesses are the admitted gap in Sec. 5.4 and the imprecise definition of Sgen[L], which prevent the paper from being a complete proof of the conjecture.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.4, case (b)] The case (b) discussion leaves a hole in the central evidence for Eq. (4.11). The paper states, "We will not attempt to demonstrate here that this always results in a net positive mass contribution; our goal is only to note that the QPI is not obviously violated in this setup." Because matter that evades L never contributes to Sgen[L], any negative ADM mass it produces would make the right-hand side of Eq. (4.11) too large. The heuristic that outward acceleration requires positive energy does not by itself bound the net ADM contribution once gravitational redshift and the location of the positive-energy "fuel" are taken into account. To claim that the QPI survives this "failed counterexample," the authors need either to prove that the net mass contribution is nonnegative in this regime or to restrict the conjecture so that such matter is explicitly excluded.
  2. [Sec. 4.1 and Sec. 4.3] The object Sgen[L] entering Eq. (4.11) is not defined with enough precision for a sharp inequality. In Sec. 4.1 the paper says that subleading divergences in Sout "are expected" to cancel against geometric counterterms, citing [10]; in Sec. 4.3 the lightsheet is to be terminated "slightly before" the singularity, with a terminal area c l_P^2, but the dependence on c and on the renormalization scheme is not specified in the statement of the inequality. Separately, the undetermined O(c) Casimir correction to the mass-area relation, acknowledged at the end of Sec. 4.3, means that Eq. (4.11) as written is only accurate up to O(1) terms. Since the entire proposal is an inequality involving Sgen[L], it is load-bearing that this quantity be a well-defined, scheme-independent number; otherwise Eq. (4.11) lacks a precise meaning.
  3. [Sec. 3] The counterexample to the classical Penrose inequality is central to the paper's motivation, but its self-consistency as a solution of the semiclassical Einstein equations is asserted rather than demonstrated. The negative energy is computed on a fixed Schwarzschild background, while the ADM mass is taken to be (1-alpha)M; the paper then argues that the trapped-surface area is unchanged to leading order. The positive-energy junction at H_c is estimated mode-by-mode rather than obtained from the constraint equations. The authors should either make explicit what remains uncontrolled in the backreaction, or provide a construction, even a toy model, in which the constraints are solved to the required order.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: "weak cosmic censorhip" should be "weak cosmic censorship."
  2. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (5.8)] The statement that Sgen[L] = Sgen[C] in the example relies on the s-wave approximation in which B has zero entropy and zero mutual information with L; this caveat should be stated right next to Eq. (5.8), since the equality is not general.
  3. [Sec. 8] The phrase "In the ℏ→0 of QPI" is missing the word "limit"; it should read "In the ℏ→0 limit of QPI."
  4. [Sec. 7, Eq. (7.2)] The notation fAdS(A) would benefit from a sentence specifying the mass dimension of A and the sense in which this classical function is used with the quantum-corrected generalized entropy; the subsequent discussion of mrad is clear in physics but hard to follow in detail because it refers to several different slices (Σ1, Σ2) without a summary of their definitions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QPI is an explicitly conjectural proposal, and its supporting calculations are consistency checks rather than fitted predictions or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's central object, Eq. (4.11), is introduced as a proposal, not as a derived theorem: Sec. 4.3 states that the Quantum Penrose Inequality is 'obtained' from the classical one by the replacements A -> 4Gℏ Sgen and θ -> Θ. This is an ansatz, and the paper does not pretend that the inequality follows deductively from the classical Penrose inequality. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction: Sgen[L(µQ)] is computed from the lightsheet of a quantum marginally trapped surface, not from the ADM mass that appears on the left side. The derivation in Sec. 5.3 shows that, under the explicit assumption that all matter crosses the lightsheet, the QPI follows from the Generalized Second Law; Sec. 8 openly states that in a perturbative/AdS scenario the QPI is equivalent to the GSL. Presenting this as evidence and explicitly identifying the reduction is a consistency check, not circularity. The function fq_AdS in Sec. 7 is calibrated in the Hartle-Hawking state and then applied to other states; the calibration and the predicted regime are distinct, so this is not a fitted-input-called-prediction. The paper relies on QFC and Q-screen GSL from the same research group, but these are explicit conjectural inputs with independent standing in the literature, and the paper does not invoke them as a uniqueness theorem; Sec. 6.1 even disclaims uniqueness of the formulation. The admitted open issue in Sec. 5.4 about negative energy that misses the lightsheet is a validity gap, not a circular step. Overall, the central claim has independent content and no load-bearing circular reduction is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the semiclassical gravity framework (G_ab = 8πG⟨T_ab⟩), on conjectural ingredients QFC and GSL, on Wall's quantum singularity theorem, and on the assumed finiteness of generalized entropy on null surfaces. The counterexample adds hand-chosen control parameters (d_c, l_max, terminal area). No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha = l_P^2 / d_c^2 = 0 < alpha << 1, set by choosing cutoff d_c with l_P << d_c << R
    Controls the fractional mass reduction (1-alpha)M in the Boulware-like counterexample. Chosen by hand to keep the semiclassical expansion under control; the violation of the CPI exists for any fixed alpha.
  • angular momentum cutoff l_max (node number n_node ~ few) = chosen so each wavepacket has a few nodes, per Eq. (3.3)
    Selected to suppress the positive junction energy at the cutoff sphere H_c relative to the negative Boulware energy. Not fitted to data; a control parameter.
  • terminal area c l_P^2 for truncating L before the singularity = 1 << c << log(R/l_P)
    Introduced in Sec 5.1 to remain in the semiclassical regime; the final area term is subleading to the result.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Semiclassical Einstein equations G_ab = 8πG⟨T_ab⟩ with perturbative expansion in Gℏ
    Used throughout (Eq. 1.1) to define the setting; this is the standard semiclassical gravity approximation.
  • domain assumption Quantum Focusing Conjecture (QFC) holds
    Invoked in Sec 4.3 to ensure Θ ≤ 0 everywhere on L, making L a lightsheet; QFC is a conjecture by Bousso, Fisher, Leichenauer, Wall.
  • domain assumption Generalized Second Law (GSL) holds for event horizons and Q-screens
    Used in Sec 5.3 to derive the QPI in the perturbative regime and in the AdS heuristic; GSL is a well-supported conjecture.
  • domain assumption Wall's quantum singularity theorem: quantum trapped surfaces lie inside or on the event horizon, assuming weak cosmic censorship
    Used to place μ_Q inside the horizon and to justify the lightsheet construction, Secs 4.1, 4.3.
  • domain assumption The renormalized stress tensor in the Boulware-like state is given by the Candelas calculation [25], with the mode decomposition and negative energy estimate
    The counterexample relies on this computation; the stress tensor is taken from prior work.
  • domain assumption Finiteness of S_gen: subleading divergences in Sout cancel against higher-order geometric counterterms
    Stated as expected in Sec 4.1; required for S_gen[L] to be well-defined in the QPI.
  • domain assumption Weak cosmic censorship holds so that the black hole region B = M - J^-(I^+) is well-defined
    Used to define L and the requirement that slices remain inside the black hole, Sec 4.3.
  • ad hoc to paper Approximation that s-wave modes have no angular momentum barrier while all l>0 modes are completely reflected and behave as Hartle-Hawking
    Used in Sec 5.1 to estimate the gap Delta ~ log(R/l_P); introduced specifically for the entropy estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Information Bound on the Energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GWXFDCEE

@misc{pith2026190902001,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Information Bound on the Energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GWXFDCEE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02001}
}
read the original abstract

According to the classical Penrose inequality, the mass at spatial infinity is bounded from below by a function of the area of certain trapped surfaces. We exhibit quantum field theory states that violate this relation at the semiclassical level. We formulate a Quantum Penrose Inequality, by replacing the area with the generalized entropy of the lightsheet of an appropriate quantum trapped surface. We perform a number of nontrivial tests of our proposal, and we consider and rule out alternative formulations. We also discuss the relation to weak cosmic censorhip.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Quantum Focusing Conjecture,

    R. Bousso, Z. Fisher, S. Leichenauer, and A. C. Wall, “Quantum Focusing Conjecture,” Phys. Rev. D93 no. 6, (2016) 064044, arXiv:1506.02669 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [1]

    Gravitational radiation from colliding black holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Gravitational radiation from colliding black holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 26 (1971) 1344–1346

    1971

  3. [2]

    New Area Law in General Relativity,

    R. Bousso and N. Engelhardt, “New Area Law in General Relativity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 no. 8, (2015) 081301, arXiv:1504.07627 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [3]

    Proof of a New Area Law in General Relativity,

    R. Bousso and N. Engelhardt, “Proof of a New Area Law in General Relativity,” Phys. Rev. D92 no. 4, (2015) 044031, arXiv:1504.07660 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [4]

    R. M. Wald, General Relativity. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984

    1984

  6. [5]

    Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities,

    R. Penrose, “Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 14 (1965) 57–59

    1965

  7. [6]

    Black holes and the second law,

    J. D. Bekenstein, “Black holes and the second law,” Nuovo Cim. Lett. 4 (1972) 737–740. – 44 –

    work page 1972

  8. [7]

    Black Holes and Entropy,

    J. D. Bekenstein, “Black Holes and Entropy,” Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 2333

    work page 1973

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Generalized second law of thermodynamics in black hole physics,

    J. D. Bekenstein, “Generalized second law of thermodynamics in black hole physics,” Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974) 3292

    1974

  2. [9]

    Generalized Second Law for Cosmology,

    R. Bousso and N. Engelhardt, “Generalized Second Law for Cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D93 no. 2, (2016) 024025, arXiv:1510.02099 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    The Generalized Second Law implies a Quantum Singularity Theorem,

    A. C. Wall, “The Generalized Second Law implies a Quantum Singularity Theorem,” Class.Quant.Grav. 30 (2013) 165003, arXiv:1010.5513 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Proof of the Quantum Null Energy Condition,

    R. Bousso, Z. Fisher, J. Koeller, S. Leichenauer, and A. C. Wall, “Proof of the Quantum Null Energy Condition,” Phys. Rev. D93 no. 2, (2016) 024017, arXiv:1509.02542 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Holographic Proof of the Quantum Null Energy Condition,

    J. Koeller and S. Leichenauer, “Holographic Proof of the Quantum Null Energy Condition,” arXiv:1512.06109 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    A General Proof of the Quantum Null Energy Condition,

    S. Balakrishnan, T. Faulkner, Z. U. Khandker, and H. Wang, “A General Proof of the Quantum Null Energy Condition,” arXiv:1706.09432 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Naked singularities,

    R. ”Penrose, “Naked singularities,” Annals N. Y. Acad. Sci. 224 (1973) 125–134

    1973

  8. [16]

    The Dynamics of General Relativity,

    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, “The Dynamics of General Relativity,” in Gravitation: an Introduction to Current Research , L. Witten, ed., pp. 227–265. Wiley, New York, 1962

    1962

  9. [17]

    Proof of the positive mass theorem. II,

    R. Schoen and S. T. Yau, “Proof of the positive mass theorem. II,” Comm. Math. Phys. 79 no. 2, (1981) 231–260. https://projecteuclid.org:443/euclid.cmp/1103908964

    1981

  10. [18]

    Quantum Penrose Inequality,

    R. Bousso, A. Shahbazi-Moghaddam, and M. Tomasevic, “Quantum Penrose Inequality,” arXiv:1908.02755 [hep-th]

    1908 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Present status of the Penrose inequality,

    M. Mars, “Present status of the Penrose inequality,” Class. Quant. Grav. 26 (2009) 193001, arXiv:0906.5566 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A Holographic Argument for the Penrose Inequality in AdS,

    N. Engelhardt and G. T. Horowitz, “A Holographic Argument for the Penrose Inequality in AdS,” arXiv e-prints (Mar, 2019) arXiv:1903.00555, arXiv:1903.00555 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The large scale stucture of space-time . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1973

    1973

  14. [22]

    A covariant entropy conjecture,

    R. Bousso, “A covariant entropy conjecture,” JHEP 07 (1999) 004, hep-th/9905177

    1999 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Holography in general space-times,

    R. Bousso, “Holography in general space-times,” JHEP 06 (1999) 028, hep-th/9906022. – 45 –

    1999 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Quantum field theory in Schwarzschild and Rindler spaces,

    D. G. Boulware, “Quantum field theory in Schwarzschild and Rindler spaces,” Phys. Rev. D 11 (Mar, 1975) 1404–1423. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.11.1404

    1975 doi

  17. [25]

    Vacuum polarization in Schwarzschild spacetime,

    P. Candelas, “Vacuum polarization in Schwarzschild spacetime,” Phys. Rev. D 21 (Apr, 1980) 2185–2202. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.21.2185

    1980 doi

  18. [26]

    Boundary of the future of a surface,

    C. Akers, R. Bousso, I. F. Halpern, and G. N. Remmen, “Boundary of the future of a surface,” Phys. Rev. D97 no. 2, (2018) 024018, arXiv:1711.06689 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Entropy on a null surface for interacting quantum field theories and the Bousso bound,

    R. Bousso, H. Casini, Z. Fisher, and J. Maldacena, “Entropy on a null surface for interacting quantum field theories and the Bousso bound,” Phys.Rev. D91 no. 8, (2015) 084030, arXiv:1406.4545 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Saturating the holographic entropy bound,

    R. Bousso, B. Freivogel, and S. Leichenauer, “Saturating the holographic entropy bound,” Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 084024, arXiv:1003.3012 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    The Quantum stress tensor in the three-dimensional black hole,

    A. R. Steif, “The Quantum stress tensor in the three-dimensional black hole,” Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 585–589, arXiv:gr-qc/9308032 [gr-qc]

    1994 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime,

    N. Engelhardt and A. C. Wall, “Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime,” JHEP 1501 (2015) 073, arXiv:1408.3203 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Black strings and p-branes are unstable,

    R. Gregory and R. Laflamme, “Black strings and p-branes are unstable,” PRL 70 no. 19, (May, 1993) 2837–2840, arXiv:hep-th/9301052 [hep-th]

    1993 arXiv

  24. [32]

    The Gregory-Laflamme instability,

    R. Gregory, “The Gregory-Laflamme instability,” arXiv e-prints (Jul, 2011) arXiv:1107.5821, arXiv:1107.5821 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Final State of Gregory-Laflamme Instability,

    L. Lehner and F. Pretorius, “Final State of Gregory-Laflamme Instability,” arXiv e-prints (Jun, 2011) arXiv:1106.5184, arXiv:1106.5184 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gravitational Collapse and Cosmic Censorship,

    R. M. Wald, “Gravitational Collapse and Cosmic Censorship,” arXiv:gr-qc/9710068 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Critical Phenomena in Gravitational Collapse,

    C. Gundlach and J. M. Mart´ ın-Garc´ ıa, “Critical Phenomena in Gravitational Collapse,” Living Reviews in Relativity 10 no. 1, (Dec, 2007) 5, arXiv:0711.4620 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Universality and scaling in gravitational collapse of a massless scalar field,

    M. W. Choptuik, “Universality and scaling in gravitational collapse of a massless scalar field,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (Jan, 1993) 9–12. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.9

    1993 doi

  29. [37]

    Violation of cosmic censorship in the gravitational collapse of a dust cloud,

    D. Christodoulou, “Violation of cosmic censorship in the gravitational collapse of a dust cloud,” Commun. Math. Phys. 93 (1984) 171–195

    1984

  30. [38]

    Inevitability of a Naked Singularity Associated with the Black Hole Evaporation,

    H. Kodama, “Inevitability of a Naked Singularity Associated with the Black Hole Evaporation,” Progress of Theoretical Physics 62 (Nov., 1979) 1434–1435. – 46 –

    1979

  31. [39]

    R. M. Wald and S. Christensen, Black holes, singularities and predictability . Adam Hilger Limited, Bristol, UK, 1984. https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:16059495

    1984

  32. [40]

    Particle Emission Rates From a Black Hole. II. Massless Particles From a Rotating Hole,

    D. N. Page, “Particle Emission Rates From a Black Hole. II. Massless Particles From a Rotating Hole,” Phys. Rev. D 14 (1976) 3260

    1976

  33. [41]

    Dynamics and Observer-Dependence of Holographic Screens,

    R. Bousso and M. Moosa, “Dynamics and Observer-Dependence of Holographic Screens,” Phys. Rev. D95 no. 4, (2017) 046005, arXiv:1611.04607 [hep-th] . – 47 –

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.