Skip to content
Sarthak Bagaria

Information in Black Hole Radiation

Sarthak Bagaria
Abstract

In this report we discuss the fidelity and the rate at which we can retrieve the information that was thrown into a black hole. The analysis is based on the paper by Preskill and Hayden [1].

1 Introduction

The question we look into is that if Alice throws a k-qubit quantum information M into a black hole H, can Bob tell what the information was by looking at the Hawking radiation, given that Bob holds a quantum memory that is perfectly correlated with the previously emitted Black Hole radiation E. We assume the black hole dynamics to be unitary and rapidly mixing. Also, consider a reference system N which is initially maximally entangled with M. By retrieving information of M from the black hole, we mean extracting a subsystem of size |M| which is maximally entangled with N, so that Bob can do anything with it that he would have been able to do with M before Alice threw it into the black hole.

Just after Alice throws the information into the black hole, the system B (=HM) is transformed by a unitary transformation VB chosen uniformly with respect to a Haar measure. After some time, the black hole is in state B’ and has radiated system R which Bob observes.

Remark (Haar measure).

A complex vector in n may be represented using a vector in 2n. Unitary transformations preserve the length of this vector and hence keep it within an S2n1 subspace of R2n. Haar measure corresponds to the measure being rotationally invariant on this sphere. The expected density matrix of pure state chosen uniformly using a Haar measure is a maximally mixed state.

2 Entanglement in Black Holes

Consider first the entanglement between H and E [2]. When the black hole is just formed, |E|<<|H| and the radiation E is maximally entangled with the black hole state H. As the evaporation proceeds, log|H| declines to half it’s value and soon after |H|<<|E|. The black hole state H is then maximally entangled with radiation E.

We now give a proof of the above [3]. Consider a bipartite pure state |ψ composed of subsystems A and B. The state is chosen uniformly with respect to a Haar measure. Consider the flip operator 𝔽:𝔽(|φi|φj)=|φj|φi.

tr((ρρ)𝔽) = i,j=0nφiφj|(ρρ)𝔽|φiφj=i,j=0nφiφj|(ρρ)|φjφi
= i,j=0nφi|ρ|φjφj|ρ|φi=i=0nφi|ρ2|φi=tr(ρ2)

We use this by creating a copy AB of the system AB.

𝔼ψtr(ρA2) = 𝔼ψtr[(ρAρA)𝔽AA]=𝔼ψtr[(ψABψAB)(𝔽AA𝟏BB)]
= tr[(𝔽AA𝟏BB)|ψψ||ψψ|𝑑ψ]

We now compute

Z=|ψψ||ψψ|𝑑ψ=(UU)(|ψ0ψ0||ψ0ψ0|)(UU)𝑑U=(UU)ρ0(UU)𝑑U

where U are unitary matrices. For any unitary matrix V, we have

(VV)Z=U((VV)(UU)ρ0(UU)dU=W(WW)ρ0(WW)(VV)dW=Z(VV).

Therefore Z commutes with every unitary matrix UU(n) representation. By Schur’s lemma, Z can be decomposed as a sum of projection operators on the invariant subspaces of nn.

Z=λ1πsym+λ2πantisymπsym=12(𝟏n2+𝔽),πantisym=12(𝟏n2𝔽).

Noting that 𝔽 commutes with all UU

tr(𝔽Z)=tr(UU(πsymπanitsym)ρ0UUdU=tr(ρ0πsym)tr(ρ0πantisym)=λ1tr(πsym)λ2tr(πanisym)
tr(𝟏n2Z)=tr(UU(πsym+πanitsym)ρ0UUdU=tr(ρ0πsym)+tr(ρ0πantisym)=λ1tr(πsym)+λ2tr(πanisym)

and hence, using ρ0=|ψ0ψ0||ψ0ψ0|,

λ1=2n(n+1)tr(πsymρ0)=2n(n+1)λ2=2n(n1)tr(πantisymρ0)=0.

Therefore,

𝔼ψtr(ρA2) = tr[(𝔽AA𝟏BB)(2n(n+1)πsymAB:AB)]=2n(n+1)tr[(𝔽AA𝟏BB)12(𝟏ABAB+𝔽ABAB)]
= 1n(n+1)tr[(𝔽AA𝟏BB)+(𝟏AA𝔽BB)]
= |A||B|2+|A|2|B||A||B|(|A||B|+1)=|A|+|B||A||B|+1

For A>>B, we have 𝔼ψtr(ρA2)1/|A|. Let ai be the eigenvalues of ρA, then

i(ai1|A|)2=(iai22|A|iai+|A||A|2)=tr(ρA2)1|A|0

Therefore, A is almost maximally mixed. Using Levy’s Lemma we can say that for almost all pure states |ψ, ρA is close to maximally mixed.

Theorem (Levy’s Lemma).

Let ϕ:S2n1 be a Lipschtz continuous function on the unit sphere, i.e. |ϕ(𝐱)ϕ(𝐲)|η𝐱𝐲2. Then

Prob[|ϕ(𝐱)𝔼𝐱ϕ|ϵ]2exp(2nϵ29π3η2)

The local trace distance ϕ:|ψρA𝟏A|A|1 is Lipschitz continuous.

3 Fidelity of Retrieved Information

Consider the case when |H|<<|E| so that H is maximally entangled with E. Just after Alice throws in her information, the black hole system B is maximally entangled with NE. As the information leaks from the black hole through the radiation R, the correlation between N and remaining black hole state B’ weakens, and the information in M goes to Bob. Suppose s qubits have radiated in R, and ns qubits remain in B’.

Let ΨBNE be the pure density operator of BNE, and ρBN=TrEΨBNE be the corresponding marginal density operator on BN. The marginal density operator on NB’ is given by

σNB’(VB)=TrR[ρNB(VB)], whereρNB(VB)=(INVB)ρNB(INVB).

We show that this marginal density operator is very close to a maximally mixed and B’ and N are almost separable. To this end we prove the following inequality

𝑑VBσNB’(VB)σN(VB)σmaxB12|NB||R|2Tr[(ρNB)2]

where σN(VB)=TrB[σNB’(VB)] is the marginal density operator on N, and σmaxB=IB/|B| is the maximally mixed density operator on B’.

σNB’(VB)σN(VB)σmaxB22=Tr[(σNB’(VB))2]1|B|Tr[(σN(VB))2].

As was done in the previous section, and using the cyclic property of the trace

𝑑VBTr[(σNB’(VB))2] = 𝑑VBTr[(σNB(VB)σN¯B¯(VB¯))(FNN¯FBB¯IRR¯)]
= 𝑑VBTr[(VBσNBVBVB¯σN¯B¯VB¯)(FNN¯FBB¯IRR¯)]
= 𝑑VBTr[(σNBσN¯B¯)[(VBVB¯)(IRR¯FBB¯)(VBVB¯)]FNN¯]
= Tr[(σNBσN¯B¯)[𝑑VB(VBVB¯)(IRR¯FBB¯)(VBVB¯)]FNN¯]
= Tr[(σNBσN¯B¯)(αIBB¯+βFBB¯)FNN¯]
= αTr[(σN)2]+βTr[(ρNB)2]

where B¯ was an auxiliary copy of the system B. α and β are found using the same method as in previous section

α=|R||B||B||B|211|B|β=|B||B||R||B|211|R|

Similarly,

𝑑VBTr[(σN(VB))2] = Tr[(σNBσN¯B¯)[𝑑VB(VBVB¯)(IRR¯IBB¯)(VBVB¯)]FNN¯]
= Tr[(σNBσN¯B¯)(IBB¯FNN¯)]
= Tr[(σN(VB))2]

Therefore,

𝑑VBσNB’(VB)σN(VB)σmaxB22 𝑑VB(Tr[(σNB’(VB))2]1|B|Tr[(σN(VB))2])
1|B|Tr[(σN(VB))2]+1|R|Tr[(ρNB)2]1|B|Tr[(σN(VB))2]
1|R|Tr[(ρNB)2]

From Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,

X12|X|X22
𝑑VBσNB’(VB)σN(VB)σmaxB12 |NB||R|𝑑VBσNB’(VB)σN(VB)σmaxB22
|NB||R|2Tr[(ρNB)2]

B is maximally entangled with NE, and therefore BN is maximally mixed on a system of dimension |B|/|N|, implying Tr[(ρNB)2]=|N|/|B|. Thus,

𝑑VBσNB’(VB)σN(VB)σmaxB12|N|2|R|2=22(ks)

Hence, we see that as soon as Bob receives k qubits from the black hole radiation, he gets hold of almost all information that Alice had.

Remark (Trace distance).

The trace distance ρσ1 is a bound on how well can two quantum states be distinguished by a generalized measurement (POVM), and hence is a good measure of distinguishability of two states.

Even though Bob now hold’s Alice’s information in a subsystem M’ of RE, it may be very diffusely distributed within RE. Bob can then perform a computation that maps M’ to a compact localized system M^ so that ρM^N is a maximally entangled state |ΦM^N. The fidelity, which is a measure of correlation of ρM^N with |ΦM^N, is bounded by

F(VB)ΦM^N|ρM^N|ΦM^N1σNB’(VB)σN(VB)σmaxB112ks

Thus, the state obtained after computation is very close to maximally entangled. To prove the above inequality, we start with the definition of fidelity

F(ϱ,ς)=(Trϱ1/2ςϱ1/2)2=ϱ1/2ς1/212
Tr(MM)=i|mi|imitr(M)Trϱ1/2ςϱ1/2Tr(ϱς)F(ϱ,ς)Tr(ϱς)
ϱς22=Tr[(ϱς)2]=22Tr(ϱς)22F(ϱ,ς)
ϱς=12(ϱς)(ϱ+ς)+12(ϱ+ς)(ϱς)

Now consider the basis |i that diagonalizes ϱς with eigenvalues λi and U the unitary transformation U=isign(λi)|ii|.

Tr[|ϱς|] Tr[(ϱς)U](True for any unitary U)
= Tr[|ϱς|(ϱ+ς)]=i|λi|i|ϱ+ς|i
i|λi||i|ϱς|i|=i|λi|2=ϱς22

where in the last line we have used the property that ϱ and ς are positive semi-definite Hermitian operators. Therefore,

Tr[|ϱς|]22F(ϱ,ς)F(ϱ,ς)112Tr[|ϱς|]F(ϱ,ς)1Tr[|ϱς|]

ΨBRNE is the purification of NB’ density operator σNB. If N and B’ are decoupled, then ER can be split into two subsystems E=M^Mˇ such that M^ purifies σN and Mˇ purifies σB

ΨBRNE=ΦNM^ΦMˇB

By Uhlmann’s Theorem, F(ϱ,ς)=max|ψϱ|ψς|2 where max is over all purifications of ϱ. As |ΦBRNE=ΦNM^ΦMˇB is the purification of σN(VB)σmaxB, there exists a purification |ρBRNE of the state σNB’(VB), such that

|ΦBRNE|ρBRNE|2=F(ΦBRNE,ρBRNE)1σNB’(VB)σN(VB)σmaxB1

As a corollary to Uhlmann’s theorem, we have F(ϱAB,ςAB)F(ϱA,ςA) because purifications of AB are also purifications of A. Hence, performing a partial trace on the subsystem MˇB in the above inequality, we obtain

ΦM^N|ρM^N|ΦM^N = F(TrMˇB[ΦBRNE],TrMˇB[ρBRNE])
F(ΦBRNE,ρBRNE)
1σNB’(VB)σN(VB)σmaxB1
Remark (Fidelity).

An equivalent definition of fidelity is F(ρ,σ)=min{Fi}iTr[ρFi]Tr[σFi], where the set {Fi} constitutes a POVM. If the given state is ρ, outcome i will have probability Tr[ρFi], and if the given state is σ, outcome i will have probability Tr[σFi]. The fidelity is thus the correlation of the two probability distributions.

For the case when |H|>>|E|, essentially no information is released until the black hole has radiated enough so that |B| equals |NRE|, because till this time the radiation is maximally entangled with the black hole and N may be coupled to B’. But soon after this state is reached, the above analysis becomes applicable and black hole starts radiating the information that Alice had.

4 Conclusion

We observe that if the black hole has radiated more than half of it’s initial state, any k qubit information that is thrown into the black hole gets reflected back in the next k qubits the black hole emits, assuming the black hole mixing happens rapidly. In case the black hole is new and hasn’t radiated enough, it emits the information in the next k qubits past it’s half evaporation.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Entanglement entropy and information in a bipartite system. Taken from [2]. Thermodynamic entropy is logm where m is the size of the system.

References

  • [1] Preskill J., Hayden P. (2007). Black holes as mirrors: quantum information in random subsystems. arXiv:0708.4025v2.
  • [2] Page, D. N. (1993). Information in black hole radiation. arXiv:hep-th/9306083v2.
  • [3] Lubkin, E. (1978). Entropy of an n-system from its correlation with a k-reservoir. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 19, 1028.