A Brief History of Hawking’s Information Paradox

(a)1
Xavier Calmet and Stephen D. H. Hsu(b)2

1
Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QH, United Kingdom
2
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823, USA
arXiv:2207.08671v1 [hep-th] 18 Jul 2022

Abstract – In this invited review, we describe Hawking’s information paradox and a recently
proposed resolution of it. Explicit calculations demonstrate the existence of quantum hair on
black holes, meaning that the quantum state of the external graviton field depends on the internal
state of the black hole. Simple quantum mechanics then implies that Hawking radiation amplitudes
depend on the internal state, resulting in a pure final radiation state that preserves unitarity and,
importantly, violates a factorization assumption which is central to the original paradox. Black
hole information is encoded in entangled macroscopic superposition states of the radiation.

Introduction and Formulation of Paradox. – from vacuum fluctuations of entangled particle and an-
The thermal nature of his radiation led Stephen Hawk- tiparticle states. The vacuum state near the horizon of a
ing in 1976 to argue that black holes destroy quantum large black hole (i.e., where curvature is negligible) must
information [1]1 . More precisely, Hawking argued that be approximately that of the ordinary vacuum. One of the
black holes cause pure states to evolve into mixed states. entangled pair (the Hawking radiation) escapes to infinity,
Quantum information that falls into a black hole does not while the other particle falls into the black hole. When the
escape in the form of radiation. Rather, it vanishes com- black hole finally evaporates and disappears from our uni-
pletely from our universe, thereby violating unitarity in verse, the radiation modes are left in a mixed state with
quantum mechanics. very large entanglement entropy.
In 2009 Mathur [9, 10] gave an especially clear formula- Let us call the modes outside the horizon b1 , b2 , ..., and
tion of the paradox. His analysis tracks the entanglement those inside the horizon e1 , e2 , .... The initial slice in the
entropy of Hawking radiation emitted on a nice slice. Nice nice slice foliation contains only the matter state |ψiM
slices are spacelike surfaces which intersect both the inte- (i.e., the black hole), and none of the ei , bi . The first
rior of the black hole and the emitted Hawking radiation. step of evolution stretches the spacelike slice, so that the
Mathur emphasizes how the Hawking radiation originates particle modes e1 , b1 are now present on the new slice. The
state of these modes has the schematic form
(a) E-mail: x.calmet@sussex.ac.uk
(b) E-mail: hsusteve@gmail.com 1  
1 Given the length limit for a Perspective article, we will not be √ |0ie1 |0ib1 + |1ie1 |1ib1 , (1)
2
able to review all the work since Hawking’s seminal paper: see e.g.
[2–8]. Rather, we will focus on the material that is directly relevant where the numbers 0, 1 give the occupation number of a
to recent advances involving quantum hair. particle mode. The entanglement of the state outside the

p-1
X. Calmet and S.D.H. Hsu

horizon (given by the mode b1 ) with the state inside (given whether small ǫ entanglements between macroscopically
by the mode e1 ) yields Sentanglement = ln 2. distinct radiation states can unitarize the evolution of Ψ.
In the next step of evolution the modes b1 , e1 at the This will be examined further below.
earlier step move apart, and in the region between them
AdS/CFT and Holography. – The holographic
there appears another pair of modes b2 , e2 in a state that
principle – i.e., that bulk information in models of gravity
has the same form as (1). After N steps we have the state
in d-dimensions might be available on the (d − 1) dimen-
1  
|Ψi ≈ |ψiM ⊗ √ |0ie1 |0ib1 + |1ie1 |1ib1 sional boundary of spacetime – is due to ’t Hooft (1993)
2
1   [13] and Susskind (1995) [14]. Holography was given an ex-
⊗ √ |0ie2 |0ib2 + |1ie2 |1ib2
2 plicit realization in the AdS/CFT correspondence of Mal-
...
1   dacena (1998) [15], which suggests that black hole evapo-
⊗ √ |0ieN |0ibN + |1ieN |1ibN . (2)
2 ration can be unitary. That is, formation and evaporation
of a small black hole in the bulk is dual to the (presum-
The state Ψ has the tensor product form given above be-
ably unitary) evolution of some gauge configuration on
cause each pair creation (Hawking emission) is widely sep-
the boundary. Indeed, as conventionally interpreted, the
arated from the others. There is no connection to the
AdS/CFT correspondence provides a wide range of exam-
matter state in the leading order Hawking process. It is
ples of unitary quantum dynamics of black holes. Recently
the factorized form of Ψ that leads to the paradox, once
there has been considerable progress in directly computing
the black hole and ei modes are gone. This formulation
the entanglement entropy of evaporation using AdS meth-
has been further developed in [11, 12], though it is fair to
ods2 , and these results suggest that the process is unitary
say that all formulations of the paradox are based on as-
[17].
sumptions related to the factorization of states apparent
in (2). However, the precise mechanism by which black hole

The modes bi are entangled with the ei and the black information is encoded in outgoing radiation quanta has

hole with Sentanglement = N ln 2. This entanglement grows never been identified. To fully resolve the paradox requires
by ln 2 with each succeeding emission. If the black hole an understanding of how the bulk gravitational dynamics
evaporates away completely, the bi quanta outside will be is modified so that it becomes unitary. Various scenarios

in an entangled state, but there will be nothing that they have been advocated over time, including exotic scenarios

are entangled with. The initial pure state has evolved to with gross violations of locality near the horizon, or stable

a mixed state, described by a density matrix.
Mathur argues further that small corrections ǫ to Hawk-
ing evaporation cannot change this qualitative result: the
entanglement entropy increases by ≈ ln 2 − ǫ with each
emitted quantum. We note, however, that this entire
analysis has been specific to a given spacetime geometry via local measurements. They do not assume a specific
which defines (on each nice slice) the location of the black short distance completion of quantum gravity, but make
hole horizon, the nature of the ei modes, etc. Nowhere in
this analysis has the possibility been considered that there
might be other background geometries involved: e.g., with
black hole center of mass at a different location, or with
different recoil velocity, or equivalently with a macroscopi-
cally different pattern of radiation {b1 , b2 , ..., bN } emitted.
The black hole trajectory is determined by recoil from the
emitted radiation, so different patterns correspond to dif-
ferent trajectories. Mathur’s analysis does not consider
black hole remnants. It is unclear whether exotic new
physics is required to resolve the paradox – our analysis
below suggests that it is not.
Recently, the authors of [18–21] have argued that bulk
information is recoverable near the boundary of spacetime
some plausible assumptions, such as that the spectrum
of energy eigenvalues is bounded below. If correct, these
results provide a concrete realization of holography that
2 Under Schrödinger evolution the quantum state describing a
small black hole in AdS will become a macroscopic superposition
state with the hole on different evaporation trajectories. Presumably
the gauge dual of this bulk state evolves similarly. Neither outcome
is surprising, given the results in [16]. It would be interesting to
explore whether these observations are reflected in bulk-boundary
duality [17].

p-2
 A Brief History of Hawking’s Information Paradox

the authors refer to as holography of information. are no accidental energy degeneracies there is a one to one
Holography of information implies that the internal map between graviton states and matter source states4 . A
quantum state of a black hole must be encoded in the semiclassical matter source produces an entangled gravi-
asymptotic quantum state of its graviton field, since oth- ton state.
erwise the information would not be recoverable at the 2. Quantum gravitational fluctuations (i.e., graviton
boundary. However, the details of how this works do not loops) produce corrections to the long range potential
appear in [18–21]. The notion of quantum hair that we (e.g., ∼ r−5 ) whose coefficients depend on the internal
introduce below enables us to address this question. state of the source. This provides an explicit example
The idea that information cannot be localized in quan- of how the graviton quantum state (corresponding to the
tum gravity, and hence is recoverable at the boundary of semiclassical potential) encodes information about the in-
spacetime, can be regarded as a consequence of the Gauss ternal state of a black hole. Note the calculation is in-
Law constraints on quantization, combined with the fact sensitive to short distance effects in quantum gravity (i.e.,
that mass (i.e., gravitational charge) cannot be screened3 . the short distance completion of the model).
Note this assumes the absence of negative mass states – Using these properties, we can write the quantum state
i.e., a lower bound on the energy spectrum in quantum of the exterior metric (equivalently, the quantum state of
gravity. An alternative argument can be given using dif- the exterior geometry) as
feomorphism invariance, which implies the absence of local X X
Ψi = cn Ψg (En ) = cn | g(En ) i . (3)
observables in gravitational theories, see e.g. [22, 23] and n n

references therein. A semiclassical state has support concentrated in some

While both holography of information and AdS/CFT range of energies E, where the magnitudes of cn are
suggest that the Hawking paradox is somehow resolved largest. For simplicity, when representing the exterior
in favor of unitarity, neither yield a specific description metric state g(E) we only write the energy explicitly and
of the physical process by which black hole information suppress the other quantum numbers.
is encoded in Hawking radiation which originates outside Assume for convenience that the black hole emits one
the horizon. This question has remained a mystery over quantum at a time (e.g., at fixed intervals), culminating
the 20+ years that have elapsed since Maldacena gave in a final state of N radiation quanta:
the first examples of bulk-boundary duality. As evidence
| r1 r2 r3 · · · rN i .
supporting this conclusion, see these recent reviews [25,
26]. The quantum numbers of the i-th emitted radiation par-
ticle include the energy ∆i , momentum pi , spin si , charge
Quantum Hair and Unitary Evaporation. – We
qi , etc. The symbol ri is used to represent all of these
shall now describe the solution to Hawking’s paradox pro-
values:
posed in [27]. In [28], the analysis of the state of the
ri ∼ {∆i , pi , si , qi , . . .} .
graviton field produced by a compact matter source (e.g.,
a black hole) revealed the following: A final radiation state is specified by the values of
{r1 , r2 , . . . , rN }.
1. The asymptotic graviton state of an energy eigen-
Let the amplitude for emission of quantum ri from exte-
state source is determined at leading order by the energy
rior metric state Ψg (E) be α(E, ri ). This amplitude must
eigenvalue, and can be expressed explicitly as a coherent
4 It is a folk theorem in many-body physics that typical energy
state which depends on this eigenvalue. Insofar as there
level splittings are ∼ exp(−S) (S is the entropy of the system) and
3 Absence of gravitational screening in the low-energy effective there are no exact degeneracies without exact symmetries. Even if
theory of gravity is commonly assumed, although mathematical distinct but exactly degenerate energy eigenstates ψ1 and ψ2 exist,
studies of exotic (perhaps unphysical) spacetimes may suggest oth- it still seems likely that they are distinguishable via their effects on
erwise [24]. We show explicitly [27, 28] that information about the the graviton quantum state since by assumption the functions ψ1 (x)
black hole internal state is available in the quantum state of its grav- and ψ2 (x) are not identical. These effects are subleading relative to
ity field (quantum hair). the dependence on the energy eigenvalue.

p-3
X. Calmet and S.D.H. Hsu

approximate the semiclassical Hawking amplitude for a α(E, r) with r (again) the state of the radiated particle
black hole of mass E. In the leading approximation the and E the state of the coal as it burns.
amplitudes are those of thermal emission, but at sublead- Quantum hair allows the internal state of the black hole,
−k
ing order (i.e., ∼ S for perturbative corrections such reflected in the coefficients cn , to affect the Hawking radi-
as those calculated in [28], or exp(−S) for nonperturba- ation. The result is manifestly unitary, and the final state
tive effects, where S is the black hole entropy) additional in (6) is manifestly a pure state:
dependence on (E, ri ) will emerge. The fact that these • For each distinct initial state given by the {cn } there
corrections can depend on the internal state of the hole is is a different final radiation state.
a consequence of quantum hair. It has been shown that • The time-reversed evolution of a final radiation state
even corrections as small as exp(−S) can purify a maxi- results in a specific initial state.
mally mixed Hawking state (i.e., can perturb the radiation Note the final radiation state in (6) is a macro-
density matrix ρ so that tr ρ2 = 1), because the dimension- scopic superposition state. Configurations described by
ality (∼ exp S) of the Hilbert space is so large [29–32]. {r1 , r2 , . . . , rN } will exhibit different regions with higher
When the black hole emits the first radiation quantum or lower densities of energy, charge, etc. Time-reversed
r1 it evolves into the exterior state given on the right be- evolution will only produce the original semiclassical black
low: hole state if these radiation states converge and interfere
XX with the exact phase relations given in (6).
Ψi → cn α(En , r1 ) | g(En − ∆1 ), r1 i . (4)
n r1 We emphasize that the quantum hair provides a mech-
anism by which the amplitudes α(E, r) can depend on the
In this notation g refers to the exterior geometry and r1
internal state. These results provide, for the first time, a
to the radiation. The next emission leads to
physical picture of how the information is encoded in the
Hawking radiation.
XX
cn α(En , r1 ) α(En − ∆1 , r2 ) ×
n r1 ,r2 Specifically, the amplitudes α(E, r) can be explicitly
| g(En − ∆1 − ∆2 ), r1 , r2 i , (5) calculated using the quantum corrected metric derived in
[28, 33] using effective field theory methods. We expect a
and the final radiation state is
correction to Hawking’s thermal radiation spectrum which
is dependent on the composition of the original star via
X X
cn α(En , r1 ) α(En − ∆1 , r2 ) ×
n r1 ,r2 ,...,rN the corrections encoded in the G2N r−5 quantum gravita-
α(En − ∆1 − ∆2 , r3 ) · · · | r1 r2 · · · rN i . (6) tional corrections to the potential. This explicitly shows
how Hawking radiation retains a memory of the original
In the final state we omit reference to the geometry g as
matter configuration that collapsed to a black hole.
the black hole no longer exists: there is no horizon and
the spacetime is approximately flat. Mathur’s Theorem revisited. – Recall that in
As is the case with the decay of any macroscopic object Mathur’s formulation of the paradox each vacuum fluc-
into individual quanta, several remarks apply. A semi- tuation contains an entangled pair (ek , bk ), with the bk
classical black hole state has support concentrated in a modes escaping to infinity as Hawking radiation, and the
small range of energy eigenvalues En . Realistic radia- ek modes falling into the black hole. These modes are
tion quanta, which are localized in space and time, are defined with respect to a specific background geometry
better represented as wave packet states than as plane which has to be consistent with the overall coarse grained
wave states, and hence have a small spread as well in pattern of emitted radiation.
their energies ∆i . The energy conservation requirement: Two radiation patterns {b1 , b2 , ..., bN } and
′ ′ ′
P
En ≈ i ∆i is not exact. {b1 , b2 , ..., bN } which are sufficiently different corre-
The final expression (6) is the same one we would obtain spond to distinct semiclassical geometries and hence
from a burning lump of coal if we interpret the amplitudes distinct nice slices. The existence of distinct geometries

p-4
 A Brief History of Hawking’s Information Paradox

becomes apparent as soon as we realize that the black hole Y , the density matrix
recoil trajectory during evaporation is determined by the
ρ(X) = tr Ψ† Ψ (8)
radiation pattern. The set of possible recoil trajectories
is a collection of random walks, and the eventual spread describing a small subset X (tracing over the complement
in location of the hole is macroscopic, of order ∼ M 2 . of X in Y ) is nearly maximally mixed – i.e., like the ra-
This formulation of the paradox does not address the diation found in Hawking’s original calculation. That is,
possibility of entanglement between different geometries a pure final state in Y resulting from black hole evapo-
(i.e., between sufficiently different patterns of radiation ration might appear to be nearly maximally mixed to an
as described above). Furthermore, the nature of the in- observer (i.e., measuring devices) restricted to a specific,
falling e modes is different on each geometry as they are fixed background geometry.
excitations with respect to a specific nice slice. The fact that pure states in large Hilbert spaces are very
The b modes are the r modes in Eq. (6). In our descrip- difficult to distinguish from mixed states is central to the
tion the entanglement between b and e modes is reflected idea of decoherence: exponentially sensitive measurements
in the entanglement between r modes and the exterior are required to determine whether pure states evolve into
metric state g(E), which is itself determined by the inter- mixed states (as in the case of wavefunction collapse) or
nal black hole state. merely appear to (decoherence) [34].
A negative energy e mode reduces the total energy of the In almost all discussions of the black hole information
internal state: E → E −∆, and this is then reflected in the paradox, entanglement between different X and X ′ (equiv-
exterior metric state g(E − ∆). Other quantum numbers alently, between different branches of the wavefunction Ψ)
such as spin or charge which characterize the interior state has been neglected, although even exponentially small en-
are similarly modified by the infallinge modes.  tanglement between these branches may be sufficient to
The analog of the entangled state |0iei |0ibi + øei øbi unitarize the result [29–31].
is simply The final state in Eq. (6)

| g(E − ∆), r i + | g(E − ∆′ ), r′ i . (7)

X X
cn α(En , r1 ) α(En − ∆1 , r2 )
n r1 ,r2 ,...,rN
Upon inspection, it is easy to see that our final radiation
α(En − ∆1 − ∆2 , r3 ) · · · | r1 r2 · · · rN i
state (6) contains many “copies” of the Mathur state, cor-
responding to different background geometries, which are exhibits such X-X ′ entanglements: it does not factorize
themselves determined by the coarse grained stress tensor across semiclassical spacetimes.
of a specific radiation pattern. However, our expression As we noted previously, even corrections as small as
is manifestly unitary and exhibits entanglements across exp(−S) can purify a maximally mixed Hawking state
different background geometries, or equivalently between (i.e., can perturb a maximally mixed radiation density
radiation patterns that differ macroscopically. These en- matrix ρ so that tr ρ2 = 1), because the dimensionality
tanglements do not appear anywhere in Mathur’s formu- of the Hilbert space Y (∼ exp S) is so large.
lation and are responsible for unitarization of the evapo-
Final Remarks. – Consider a burning lump of coal
ration process.
instead of an evaporating black hole. Following a simi-
Pure vs Mixed States and Concentation of Mea- lar analysis we obtain an expression for the final radiation
sure. – Let Y be the Hilbert space describing all possible state like Eq. (6) except that α(E, r) is the amplitude
radiation patterns {r1 , r2 , · · · rN }. The subset of radiation for the coal state with energy eigenvalue E to emit radi-
patterns X which is consistent with a specific semiclassical ation state r. Due to fluctuations in the (coarse grained)
geometry (i.e., nice slice) is a very small subset X of the temperature and pressure of the emitted radiation, the
final state Hilbert space Y . initial coal state also evolves into a macroscopic superpo-
Concentration of measure (Levy’s lemma) [16] implies sition of radiation states. This is not surprising: it has
that for almost all pure states Ψ in a large Hilbert space been shown using von Neumann’s 1929 Quantum Ergodic

p-5
X. Calmet and S.D.H. Hsu
Theorem [35] that under very weak assumptions generic
initial states will evolve into macroscopic superposition
states [16].
Because our expressions (4)-(6) are manifestly unitary,
and the final radiation state is pure, the Page curve [36,37]
of entanglement entropy as a function of evaporation time
returns to zero. The entanglement entropy of the radiation associated data. Data sharing not applicable to this arti-
state increases from zero, reaches a maximum while the cle as no datasets were generated or analysed during the
evaporation is in progress, and returns to zero when the
black hole has vanished and only the final pure state (6)
remains.
The radiation amplitudes computed by Hawking, which
describe thermal radiation emitted from a black hole at
temperature T , already describe a broad distribution of
possible radiation types, spins, and momenta emitted at
each stage. Thus, even in the semiclassical approximation
there are many distinct patterns of radiation in (6). The
set of possible final states is already complex even at lead-
ing order, resulting in very different coarse grained pat-
terns of energy-momentum density. Small corrections to
the amplitudes α(E, r) due to quantum hair do not qual-
itatively change this situation, but they are necessary to
unitarize the evaporation and they determine the precise
relations between components of the entangled state.
Importantly, no special assumptions about the ampli-
tudes α(E, r) need to be made to determine that the fac-
torized form of the state (2) does not hold. Factorization
is assumed in essentially every formulation of the informa-
tion paradox, but in reality is violated because the external
graviton state depends on the internal black hole state.
Known quantum gravitational effects leading to quan-
tum hair are extremely small and thus difficult to probe
experimentally or detect via observations. We cannot
prove that our solution to the information paradox is
unique. However, the consequences of quantum hair lead,
without any speculative theoretical assumptions, to plausi-
ble unitary evaporation of black holes. The properties of
quantum hair and the evaporation amplitude (6) can be
deduced using only long wavelength properties of quan-
tum gravity – they do not rely on assumptions about [15] J.
Planck scale physics or a specific short distance comple- 2,
tion. Therefore, Occam’s razor favors quantum hair.
p-6
∗∗∗
The work of X.C. is supported in part by the Sci-
ence and Technology Facilities Council (grants numbers
ST/T00102X/1 and ST/T006048/1).
Data Availability Statement: This manuscript has no
current study.
REFERENCES
[1] S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 13 (1976), 191-197
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.13.191.
[2] G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 43 (1995), 1-11
doi:10.1016/0920-5632(95)00444-E
[3] S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005), 084013
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.084013 [arXiv:hep-th/0507171
[hep-th]].
[4] S. W. Hawking, [arXiv:1401.5761 [hep-th]].
[5] S. W. Hawking, [arXiv:1509.01147 [hep-th]].
[6] S. B. Giddings, [arXiv:hep-th/9508151 [hep-th]].
[7] R. Bousso, X. Dong, N. Engelhardt, T. Faulkner, T. Hart-
man, S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, [arXiv:2201.03096
[hep-th]].
[8] N. Engelhardt and A. Folkestad, Phys. Rev. D 105
(2022) no.8, 086010 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.086010
[arXiv:2201.08395 [hep-th]].
[9] S. D. Mathur, Class. Quant. Grav. 26 (2009), 224001
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/26/22/224001 [arXiv:0909.1038
[hep-th]].
[10] S. D. Mathur, [arXiv:1108.0302 [hep-th]].
[11] A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski and J. Sully, “Black
Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls?,” JHEP 02 (2013),
062 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2013)062 [arXiv:1207.3123 [hep-
th]].
[12] A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski and J. Sully,
“An Apologia for Firewalls,” JHEP 09 (2013), 018
doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2013)018 [arXiv:1304.6483 [hep-th]].
[13] G. ’t Hooft, Conf. Proc. C 930308 (1993), 284-296
[arXiv:gr-qc/9310026 [gr-qc]].
[14] L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys. 36, 6377-6396 (1995)
doi:10.1063/1.531249 [arXiv:hep-th/9409089 [hep-th]].
M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.
231-252 (1998) doi:10.1023/A:1026654312961
[arXiv:hep-th/9711200 [hep-th]].
 A Brief History of Hawking’s Information Paradox

[16] R. V. Buniy and S. D. H. Hsu, Found. Phys. 51 (2021) [arXiv:1909.13277 [hep-th]].

no.4, 85 doi:10.1007/s10701-021-00477-2 [arXiv:2011.11661 [34] S. D. H. Hsu and D. Reeb, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009),
[quant-ph]]. 124037 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.124037 [arXiv:0903.2258
[17] A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghoulian [gr-qc]].
and A. Tajdini, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93 (2021) no.3, 035002 [35] J. von Neumann, Z. Physik 57, 30–70 (1929).
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93.035002 [arXiv:2006.06872 [36] D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993), 3743-3746
[hep-th]]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.3743 [arXiv:hep-th/9306083
[18] A. Laddha, S. G. Prabhu, S. Raju and P. Shri- [hep-th]].
vastava, SciPost Phys. 10, no.2, 041 (2021) [37] D. N. Page, JCAP 09 (2013), 028 doi:10.1088/1475-
doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.10.2.041 [arXiv:2002.02448 7516/2013/09/028 [arXiv:1301.4995 [hep-th]].
[hep-th]].
[19] C. Chowdhury, O. Papadoulaki and S. Raju, SciPost Phys.
10, no.5, 106 (2021) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.10.5.106
[arXiv:2008.01740 [hep-th]].
[20] C. Chowdhury, V. Godet, O. Papadoulaki and S. Raju,
[arXiv:2107.14802 [hep-th]].
[21] S. Raju, Phys. Rept. 943 (2022), 1-80
doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2021.10.001 [arXiv:2012.05770
[hep-th]].
[22] S. B. Giddings, D. Marolf and J. B. Hartle, Phys. Rev.
D 74 (2006), 064018 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.064018
[arXiv:hep-th/0512200 [hep-th]].
[23] C. Kiefer, “Quantum Gravity,” Third edi-
tion, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford 2012, pp 432,
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199585205.001.0001.
[24] A. Carlotto and R. Schoen, Invent. math. 205, 559–6.
[25] I. Bena, E. J. Martinec, S. D. Mathur and N. P. Warner,
“Snowmass White Paper: Micro- and Macro-Structure of
Black Holes,” [arXiv:2203.04981 [hep-th]].
[26] E. J. Martinec, [arXiv:2203.04947 [hep-th]].
[27] X. Calmet and S. D. H. Hsu, Phys. Lett. B
827 (2022), 136995 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.136995
[arXiv:2112.05171 [hep-th]].
[28] X. Calmet, R. Casadio, S. D. H. Hsu and
F. Kuipers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) no.11, 111301
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.111301 [arXiv:2110.09386
[hep-th]].
[29] K. Papadodimas and S. Raju, JHEP 10, 212 (2013)
doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)212 [arXiv:1211.6767 [hep-th]].
[30] S. D. H. Hsu, [arXiv:1302.0451 [hep-th]].
[31] S. D. H. Hsu, [arXiv:1308.5686 [hep-th]].
[32] N. Bao, S. M. Carroll, A. Chatwin-Davies, J. Pollack and
G. N. Remmen, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.12, 126014 (2018)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.126014 [arXiv:1712.04955 [hep-
th]].
[33] X. Calmet, R. Casadio and F. Kuipers, Phys. Rev. D 100
(2019) no.8, 086010 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.086010

p-7