Non-Paradoxical Loss of Information in Black Hole Evaporation in a QuantumCollapse Model

Sujoy K. Modak,1, ∗ Leonardo Ortız,1, † Igor Pena,2, ‡ and Daniel Sudarsky1, §

1Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico D.F. 04510, Mexico2Plantel Casa Libertad, Universidad Autonoma de la Ciudad de Mexico,

Calzada Ermita Iztapalapa 4163, Distrito Federal, 09620, Mexico

We consider a novel approach to address the black hole information paradox (BHIP). The ideais based on adapting, to the situation at hand, the modified versions of quantum theory involv-ing spontaneous stochastic dynamical collapse of quantum states, which have been considered inattempts to deal with shortcomings of the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechan-ics, in particular, the issue known as “the measurement problem”. The new basic hypothesis is thatthe modified quantum behavior is enhanced in the region of high curvature so that the informationencoded in the initial quantum state of the matter fields is rapidly erased as the black hole singu-larity is approached. We show that in this manner the complete evaporation of the black hole viaHawking radiation can be understood as involving no paradox. Calculations are performed using amodified version of quantum theory known as “Continuous Spontaneous Localization” (CSL), whichwas originally developed in the context of many particle non-relativistic quantum mechanics. We usea version of CSL tailored to quantum field theory and applied in the context of the two dimensionalCallan-Giddings-Harvey-Strominger (CGHS) model. Although the role of quantum gravity in thispicture is restricted to the resolution of the singularity, related studies suggest that there might befurther connections.

I. INTRODUCTION

The essence of the information loss paradox in blackhole (BH) evaporation is that, starting with a systemin a pure initial quantum state of matter that forms aBH, its subsequent evolution leads to something that, atthe quantum level, can only be characterized as a highlymixed quantum state, while, the standard quantum me-chanical considerations lead one to expect a fully unitaryevolution [1]. There is even a debate as to whether ornot this should be considered as a paradox [2]. In [3] itis argued that the debate arises due to basic differencesof outlook regarding the fate of the BH singularity in thecontext of a quantum theory.

In recent times, many researchers in the quantum grav-ity (QG) field have been trying to address the black holeinformation conundrum, within the context of their pre-ferred approach. After all, the “paradox” truly emergesonly if one assumes that QG will remove the singularitiesthat appear in association with black holes in general rel-ativity (GR). Otherwise, the singularity could be viewedas representing an additional boundary of space-time,where the missing information could be registered. Theproposals to address the issue involve various schemeswhereby the complete evolution respects quantum me-chanical unitarity, and thus the information is strictlyconserved [4]-[6]. However, whereas there are questionson the validity of some of these proposals [7], other stud-ies along those lines [8] connect the resolution of the issue

∗ sujoy.kumar@correo.nucleares.unam.mx† leonardo.ortiz@correo.nucleares.unam.mx‡ igor.pena@uacm.edu.mx§ sudarsky@nucleares.unam.mx

with the emergence of “firewalls”, creating a serious ten-sion between the equivalence principle of GR and theunitarity of quantum mechanics. The considerations in-volving “firewalls” have induced an intense controversy asto which of the two basic tenets, the unitarity of the evo-lution or the equivalence principle, should be sacrificed inresolving the issue. It is clear that none will be withoutrepercussions either in quantum mechanics (QM), or inthe theory of general relativity. Presently, there are var-ious dramatic ideas under consideration. For instance,that the event horizon never forms [9], that even if thereis an event horizon, particles inside and outside the hori-zon are entangled via wormholes (ER=EPR hypothesis)[10], etc. We do not find these proposals very attractive,among other reasons, because they have been designed,exclusively, to deal with the problem at hand and seemto lack a “broader” motivation. In contrast, the proposalwe will explore in this work, connects the issue at handto what is often taken as the most serious foundationalproblem in quantum theory, namely “the measurementproblem”. We have been motivated by Penrose’s longstanding arguments [11] suggesting that the reconcilia-tion of quantum theory and general relativity, somethingthat is often considered as limited to finding an appro-priate theory of QG , will in fact require much more,i.e. the modification of both QM and GR, and by hisobservation that a statistical picture of thermal equilib-rium of a system, which includes black holes, seems torequire some departure from unitarity in the evolution ofordinary quantum systems [12].

The overall scheme we will consider is based on thedynamical reduction theories introduced to deal with

arX

iv:1

408.

3062

v3 [

gr-q

c] 1

8 M

ay 2

015

2

the “measurement problem” [13]-[16]1. These ideas dateback to [17], with the first specific toy model proposalsin [18], and the first viable proposals in [19] with thetheory of Spontaneous Localization, and later the pro-posal known as Continuous Spontaneous Localization orCSL [20, 21]. Not long after that, Diosi [22] and Pen-rose [11, 12] proposed the connection of these ideas withquantum aspects of gravity. Recently, these ideas havebeen considered by Weinberg [23], who emphasizes that,despite all efforts, we still lack a reasonable interpreta-tional solution to the problems of quantum theory. Wewill consider the issue at hand within the context of suchtheories, and ask if they could account, at the quantita-tive level, for the loss of information in black hole evapo-ration, and about the kind of adaptations that would beinvolved in doing so.

These theories include modifications of quantum dy-namics which can be characterized by additional termsin the Schrodinger equation. The impact of such terms iscontrolled by a new fundamental constant called the col-lapse parameter, often denoted by λ, which is taken to besmall enough to ensure that ordinary quantum mechan-ics holds as a very good approximation in regimes notinvolving too many particles (where it has been testedwith enormous precision), and yet large enough to ex-plain the absence of macroscopic Schrodinger cat states.We make the novel hypothesis that λ depends stronglyon the space- time curvature. That is, in the regions ofsmaller or vanishing curvature, this “stochastic collapse”will be negligible, and effective quantum evolution will begiven essentially by Schrodinger’s evolution (except whenlarge apparatuses consisting of too many particles are in-volved, as in the cases considered by the original collapsetheories). But, in regions of higher curvature, the evo-lution will be dominated by this new term, making theeffective evolution highly non-unitary. We should notehere the connections between the present proposal andthe arguments regarding the essential viability of modelsinvolving loss of unitarity in the effective description ofa black hole evaporation, which were carried out in [24].

It should be stressed that resolving the BH informationparadox within this kind of approach would require ex-plaining how a pure state becomes a (quantum) thermalstate corresponding to a proper mixture, rather than animproper one2, as a result of the eventual disappearance

1 We recall that the issue here is how to make compatible thereduction postulate associated with measurements with the dy-namical evolution law provided by Schrodinger’s equation if onewants to describe the apparatus and observer and not just thesystem of interest, in terms of the quantum theory.

2 A proper mixture represents an actual ensemble of systems, eachof which has been prepared to be in different but definite states,with their proportion in the ensemble determined by the corre-sponding weights. An improper mixture represents the partialdescription, as provided by the reduced density matrix, of a sub-system which is part of a larger system which is, as a whole, ina pure state. This terminology is borrowed from [25, 26].

of the interior region, in a the case of complete evapora-tion of the black hole. We will see this at work in theanalysis below.

II. THE BASIC SET UP

Given the complexity of the problem we willpresent our analysis using a simplified 2-dimensionalmodel known as the Callan-Giddings-Harvey-Strominger(CGHS) black hole [27], and will work with a toy-adapted version of CSL.

The modified quantum dynamical evolution, as dic-tated by CSL, is specified by the choice of a certain ob-servable A, and by two equations: i) A (stochastically)modified Schrodinger equation, whose solution is:

|ψ, t〉w = T e−∫ t0dt′[iH+ 1

4λ0[w(t′)−2λ0A]2

]|ψ, 0〉, (1)

where T is the time-ordering operator, w(t) is a random,white noise type classical function of time whose proba-bility is given by the second equation, ii) the ProbabilityDistribution Density [P (Dw(t))] rule:

P (Dw(t)) ≡ w〈ψ, t|ψ, t〉wt∏

ti=0

dw(ti)√2πλ0/dt

. (2)

Thus the standard Schrodinger evolution and the changesin the state corresponding to a “measurement” of theobservable A are unified. For non-relativistic quantummechanics of a single particle, the proposal assumes thatthere is, in all situations (without invoking any measure-ment device or observer), a spontaneous and continuous

reduction characterized by A = ~Xδ, where ~Xδ is a suit-ably smeared (with the smearing characterized by the

scale δ) version of the position operator ~X. When thisis generalized to multi-particle systems3 and everything,including, the apparatuses are treated quantum mechan-ically, the theory seems to successfully address the mea-surement problem [13]-[16]. For all this to work appro-priately at the quantitative level, the collapse parameterλ0 must be small enough not to conflict with tests of QMin the domain of subatomic physics, and big enough toresult in rapid localization of “macroscopic objects”. TheGRW suggested value is λ0 ∼ 10−16sec−1. For more dis-cussions regarding the current status of the theory, and inparticular, the empirical constraints, we refer the readerto [28].

So far; studies related to CSL dynamics have beenmostly limited to non-relativistic many particle systems

3 This, in particular, involves dealing with multiple operators A(one for each particle), and their corresponding stochastic func-tions w. The evolution equation then takes the form we will usein 5.

3

in flat space-time4. We must, however, beware of trying,at this stage, to compare those studies with the presentone, and to require, for instance that the exact versions,of the theory used in the vastly different contexts, co-incide. In that sense, we must view the present stageof investigation of these ideas as a search for the basicclues that will permit the delineation of a fundamentalcollapse theory, which should not only be applicable inall situations, (i.e., cosmology, black holes and labora-tory setting), but should also be clearly self consistentand fully covariant. In the present work, we must adaptthe approach to situations involving both quantum fieldsand curved space-times.

We note that dynamical reduction in the quantumstate requires the notion of “time” (the collapse takesplace in time), and given that canonical QG is knownto have a problem with time, we will proceed with ouranalysis assuming that, to a large extent, and in fact inregimes where the curvature is far from the Planck scale,one can rely on the semi-classical framework. Our pointof view is that, even if at the fundamental level grav-itation must be quantum mechanical in nature, at thesub-Planckian scales, it should be described in terms ofsemi-classical gravitation, where the metric itself corre-sponds to an emergent phenomena, and where traces ofthe full quantum regime might survive and include effectswhich, at in semi-classical level of description, take theform of an effective dynamical state reduction for matterfields.

To summarize, our analysis is based on following in-gredients:

1. The CGHS black hole,

2. a toy version of CSL adapted to a field theory on acurved space-time,

3. an assumption that the CSL collapse parameter isnot fixed but depends (increases) with the local cur-vature [31] and

4. some simplifying, but rather natural, assumptionsabout what happens when QG “cures” a singular-ity.

III. CSL THEORY IN CGHS MODEL

A. CGHS model

Now, we review the basic features of the CGHS model,which offers a two dimensional version of black hole for-mation and evaporation. For more details we refer the

4 We should also note the recent investigations involving applica-tion of CSL to the problem of generation of the seeds of cosmicstructure in inflationary cosmology [29, 30].

Singularity

Horizon

L

L

R

R

--

+ +

xx - +

0

0-

-

i

i

i

-

+

0

Linear

Dilaton

I

I’ II

III

r=-

Pulse ofmatter

Latetime

Earlytime

x+0

FIG. 1. Penrose diagram for CGHS spacetime.

reader to [32]. The CGHS action is given by

S =1

2π

∫d2x√−g[e−2φ

[R+ 4(∇φ)2 + 4Λ2

]− 1

2(∇f)2

]where φ is the dilaton field, Λ2 is the cosmolog-ical constant, and f is a scalar field, representingmatter. The generic construction of the CGHS modelis shown in Fig. 1. At x+ < x+

0 , the metric isMinkowskian, usually known as the dilaton vacuum (re-

gion I and I’), given by ds2 = − dx+dx−

−Λ2x+x− , whereas, at

x+ > x+0 it is represented by the black hole metric

(region II, III) ds2 = − dx+dx−MΛ −Λ2x+(x−+∆)

. These (null)

Kruskal coordinates (x+, x−) are useful in presentingthe global structure of the spacetime. On the otherhand, for physical studies involving Quantum Field The-ory (QFT) in curved space-time, it is often convenientto use coordinates associated with physically interest-ing observers in various regions. In the dilation vac-uum region, natural Minkowskian coordinates are y+ =1Λ ln(Λx+), y− = 1

Λ ln(−x−

∆ ), and the metric is expressed

as ds2 = −dy+dy− with −∞ < y− < ∞; − ∞ <y+ < 1

Λ ln(Λx+0 ). On the other hand, on the BH ex-

terior (region II), where the long lived physical observersmight exist, one has the coordinates σ+ = 1

Λ ln(Λx+) =

y+, σ− = − 1Λ ln(−Λ(x− + ∆)), so that the metric is

ds2 = − dσ+dσ−

1+(M/Λ)eΛ(σ−−σ+) with −∞ < σ− < ∞ and

σ+ > σ+0 = 1

Λ ln(Λx+0 ). We can see the asymptotic flat-

ness by expressing this metric in Schwarzschild like co-ordinates (t, r) defined by σ± = t ± 1

2Λ ln(e2Λr −M/Λ)

so that, we have ds2 = −(1− MΛ e−2λr)dt2 + dr2

(1−MΛ e−2λr).

The Kruskal coordinates 2T = x+ + x− + ∆, 2X =x+−x−−∆ can be related with Schwarzschild like timet and space r coordinates using tanh(Λt) = T/X and− 1

Λ2 (e2Λr −M/Λ) = T 2 −X2.Next, we consider the quantum description of the field

f for which one uses I −L ∪ I −R as the asymptotic past

4

(in) region, and the black hole (exterior and interior)region as the asymptotic out region. The in descrip-tion of the quantum field operator can be expanded as

f(x) =∑

(fRω (x) + fLω (x)), where fR/Lω = a

R/Lω u

R/Lω +

aR/L†ω u

R∗/L∗ω . Here, the basis of functions (modes) are:

uRω = 1√2ωe−iωy

−and uLω = 1√

2ωe−iωy

+

, with ω > 0. The

superscripts R and L mean right and left moving modes.These modes thus specify a right in vacuum (|0in〉R),and a left in vacuum (|0in〉L), whose tensor product(|0in〉R ⊗ |0in〉L) defines our in vacuum. One can alsoexpand the field in the out region in terms of the com-plete set of modes that (at late times) have support inthe outside (exterior) and inside (interior) of the eventhorizon, respectively. Therefore the field operator has

the form f(x) = fRout(x) + fLout(x) where,

fR/Lout (x) =

∑ω

bR/Lω vR/Lω + bR/L†ω vR∗/L∗ω

+∑ω

bR/Lω v

R/Lω + b

R/L†ω v

R∗/L∗ω , (3)

where we use the convention in which modes with andwithout tildes are associated with having support in-side and outside the horizon, respectively. The cor-responding operators are similarly labeled. We notethat , as will be further argued in the last sec-tion, the arbitrariness in the choice of modes insidethe horizon will not affect our physical results. Themode functions in the exterior to the horizon thatwe will use are: vRω = 1√

2ωe−iωσ

−Θ(−(x− + ∆)) and

vLω = 1√2ωe−iωσ

+

Θ(x+ − x+0 ). Similarly, one can define

a set of modes in the black hole interior so that thebasis of modes in the out region is complete. Forthe left moving modes, we maintain the same choiceas before, while for the right moving mode, we use

vRω = 1√2ωeiωσ

−inΘ(x− + ∆). Following [32], we replace

the above delocalized plane wave modes by a complete

orthonormal set of discrete wave packets modes, vL/Rnj =

1√ε

∫ (j+1)ε

jεdωe2πiωn/εv

L/Rω ,where the integers j ≥ 0 and

−∞ < n < ∞. These wave packets are peaked aboutσ+/− = 2πn/ε with width 2π/ε respectively.

The non-trivial Bogolubov transformations are onlyrelevant in the right moving sector, and the correspond-ing transformation from in to exterior modes is what ac-counts for the Hawking radiation. As is well known, thefact that the initial state, corresponding to the vacuumfor the right moving modes, and the left moving pulseforming the black hole |Ψin〉 = |0in〉R ⊗ |Pulse〉L can bewritten as:

N∑Fnj

CFnj |Fnj〉ext ⊗ |Fnj〉int ⊗ |Pulse〉L , (4)

where the states |Fnj〉 are characterized by the finiteoccupation numbers {Fnj} for each corresponding moden, j, N is a normalization constant, and the coefficients

CFnj ’s are determined by the Bogolubov transforma-tions. If one now decides to ignore the degrees of freedom(DOF) of the quantum field lying in the black hole inte-rior, and to describe just the exterior DOF, one passes, asusual, to a density matrix description. Thus, we wouldobtain the reduced density matrix by tracing over theinterior DOF, and we end up, as is well known, with adensity matrix corresponding to a thermal state. Notethat this density matrix represents in the language of[25, 26], an improper mixture as it arises from ignoringpart of the system, which as a whole is in a pure state.We will thus say that what we have at this point is animproper thermal state. As we said before, in this paperwe will obtain a proper thermal state.

B. CSL evolution of quantum fields in CGHSbackground

We are now in a position to show how a thermal state,corresponding to a proper mixture, is obtained using ouradapted version of CSL, and some reasonable assump-tions about QG. As the CSL theory involves a modifica-tion of the time evolution of the quantum states, we needa foliation of our space-time associated with a “globaltime parameter”. As is customary in QFT, we will beusing an interaction-type picture, where the free part ofthe evolution is encoded in the field operators, and theinteraction, which in our case is just the new CSL part,drives the evolution of the states. In a relativistic con-text, based in a truly covariant version of CSL, one wouldbe using a Tomonaga-Schwinger type of evolution equa-tion.

Let us now briefly comment on the application of CSLto the CGHS model. In order to describe the CSL evo-lution we first need to foliate the spacetime with Cauchyslices5 which are defined in the following manner. Wechoose a r = const. and a t = const. surfaces in the in-side and outside of the horizon, respectively, and thenjoin them using a surface T = const (see Figure (2)).We specify the juncture points (i.e., the points of in-tersection between r = const. with T = const. in-side the horizon as well as T = const. and t = constoutside the horizon) by two curves, T1,2(X). We take

T1(X) =(X2 + M

Λ3 e−2Λ/

√X)1/2

and T2(X) is found by

reflection of T1(X) with respect to the horizon T = X.Note that this choice for the intersection curves is notunique and many other choices are acceptable. Howeverit is essential that the slices be Cauchy hypersurfaces.With this construction, we can now introduce a “global

5 We must be careful here as the space-time that includes theQG region (i.e. the would be singularity) can not be said to beglobally hyperbolic. However, the space- time to the past of thatregion is, in fact, globally hyperbolic, and there the notion ofCauchy slice is appropriate.

5

r = const.

T = const.

t = const.

τ = τs

X

T

FIG. 2. Spacetime foliation plots for the CGHS spacetime.

time parameter” τ specifying the hyper surfaces of the fo-liation by the value of its intersect with the T axis. Thisfoliation covers the complete “BH region” (exterior andinterior) and one can extend it to past vacuum regionarbitrarily with no effect in our study, simply because,the CSL modification in the dynamics is significant onlyinside the black hole (more precisely, close to the singu-larity).

Now, we must select the operators driving the collapsein our version of CSL evolution. We note, as was alreadymentioned, that the CSL equations can be generalizedto drive the collapse process leading to one element ofthe joint eigen- basis of the set of commuting operators{Aα} which we call the collapse operators. For each Aα

there is one stochastic function wα(t), and the evolutionequation takes the form:

|ψ, t〉w = T e−∫ t0dt′[iH+ 1

4λ

∑α[wα(t′)−2λAα]2

]|ψ, 0〉. (5)

In standard non-relativistic CSL on flat spacetime, andas previously noted, one takes these to be the (smeared)position operators so that the collapse takes place in ”po-sition space” so as to literally localize the wave function.In the situation at hand we will use, for simplicity, theparticle number operators (see footnote 3), so that, giventhat λ becomes large only in regions of high space-timecurvature the states will collapse to a state with definitenumber of particles in the inside region. Far from thesingularity the rate of collapse will be much smaller, andthe direct effects of CSL evolution will be almost negligi-ble (i.e. just as the ones of the original version of CSL).

We should note here that, we have selected these col-lapse driving operators for simplicity of the calculationsbut other choices can be expected to yield essentiallythe same end result. The basic reason for that is thatthe relevant collapse operators will be associated withthe regions near the curvature singularity which lies in-side the horizon, and the fact that CSL theory is known

not to lead to faster than light communication in EPR-Btype situations [33]. We can understand this by recall-ing that even in simplistic versions of theories involvingmeasurement-related collapse, such as the Copenhageninterpretation of quantum mechanics, for an EPR-B sit-uation, the choices made by Bob on what observable tomeasure in his part of the entangled pair, can not beused to send a signal to Alice, who will, for all the pos-sible choices made by Bob, observe the same statisticalresults in all her possible observations. As we know, itis only by measuring correlations between the two sides,that something nontrivial can be said in such cases. Inother words, the observers outside will find the same sta-tistical distribution of results for all possible observationsregardless of what “nature measures” (by this we mean“in what basis, does the fundamental CSL type theoryactually collapse our quantum field states”) in the blackhole interior.

As we have mentioned before, our version of CSL incurved space-time is taken to have a curvature dependentλ. Concretely, we will assume here that λ depends, in this2-dimensional situation, on the Ricci scalar R accordingto:

λ(R) = λ0

[1 +

(R

µ

)γ](6)

where γ ≥ 1 is a constant, µ provides an appropriatescale and λ0 is the standard CSL rate of collapse [34]. Itshould be noted that, in a more realistic 4-dimensionalmodel one should have a λ depending on Weyl scalar(WabcdW

abcd) as mentioned in [35].

Note that the hypersurfaces given by our chosen fo-liation in Figure (2) have constant R inside the blackhole (in almost all the part of Στ that lies inside) andthe value of R is increasing towards the singularity. Asa result, Cauchy slices with larger τ have, inside thehorizon, a larger value of λ (inside the horizon we haveR = 4MΛ

M/Λ−(T 2−X2) = 4MΛM/Λ−Λ2τ2 ). Therefore, although

the CSL evolution allows us to evolve the state of thequantum field from one Cauchy slice to another, the ef-fective collapse will take place only in the interior part ofthe slicing, while its effect on the exterior portion will notbe significant. Of course, there will be an indirect effectto the quantum field states defined with respect to theexterior Fock space, since these states are entangled withthe internal field states. When the collapse takes placefor the inside DOF, to the eigenstate of number opera-tor defined inside, it will automatically collapse also theexterior quantum states to a definite particle number,but that, of course, does not affect the statistical resultsobtained by the outside observers as explained before.

Thus, for the region of interest we have λ = λ(τ) andthe resulting evolution will achieve in the finite “time” to

the singularity (i.e., τ = τs = M1/2

Λ3/2 ), what ordinary CSLachieves in an infinite amount of time. In this time theCSL evolution will drive the state to one of the eigen-

6

states of the collapse operators6. Recall that the particlecontent of state |F 〉 is given by the particle distributionF = {. . . , Fnj , . . . } where Fnj is the number of particlesin mode vnj (both for the inside of the black hole andthe outside). It should be noted that the collapse processavoids generating singularities in the energy-momentumtensor when we take smeared versions of these numberoperators. That ensures that no “firewall” type situ-ations would arise far from the singularity7. The ac-tion of the number operator N int

nj acting on F int is

N intnj |F 〉

int= Fnj |F 〉int. The set of collapse operators we

are contemplating are:

Aα = ˆN intnj ⊗ Iext (7)

for all n, j, where Iext is the identity operator in F ext.Thus the quantum states corresponding to interior Fock

space will tend to collapse to the joint eigenstates of ˆN intnj

with definite particle content, whereas states in the exte-rior Fock space will remain essentially unaffected by thecollapse dynamics. As we said, the only significant effecton external states will be that due to the entanglementwith internal quantum states of the black hole.

With the above construction we are now in a positionto show how quantum evolution takes place in our model.We will do that, first, for a single system (which is givenin (4)), and later, for an ensemble of systems prepared inthe same initial state.

Let us consider the first case. The fact that CSLevolves states towards one of the eigenstates of the col-lapse operators (7) ensures that, as the result of the evo-lution (5), the state at a hypersurfaces τ = const., thatcomes very close to the singularity (on Στs−ε in Fig. 3),would be of the form:

|Ψin,τ 〉 = NCFnj |Fnj〉ext ⊗ |Fnj〉int ⊗ |Pulse〉L. (8)

Note that there is no summation, so the state is pure,even though it is undetermined, simply because we don’tknow the actual realization of the stochastic functionswnj .

Note that, although individual states with definite oc-cupation number in the ext and int modes such as theone above lead to singular 〈Tab〉, those states are onlyapproached asymptotically as τ → τs. The dynamics ofCSL generates only smooth states prior to the singularity[37]. The situation is analogous to the measurement ofa precise number of Rindler particles in the Minkowskivacuum in a finite time, which is impossible unless thefield-detector interaction is singular [36].

6 We noted that as we will be working in the interaction picture,we must make the replacement H → 0 in (5).

7 The issue here is related to the fact that measuring the exactnumber of Unruh particles present in the Minkowski vacuumwould lead to the kind of singular quantum states that containfirewalls. Such eventuality is prevented by assuming that theeffects of all physical devices associated with the measurementcan be represented by smooth local operators [36].

Matter

QG region

0

s-

f

FIG. 3. Plausible space-time structure including the post-singularity region.

IV. ROLE OF QUANTUM GRAVITY AND THEFINAL RESULT

We have characterized the state after the CSL evolu-tion (8) defined on a Cauchy slice that comes very closeto the singularity, and thus we must now consider therole of quantum gravity, to pass to the final hypersurfaceΣτf in Fig. 3. For that, we shall make some seeminglynatural assumptions about QG. We will assume that areasonable theory of QG will resolve the singularity andlead, on the other side, to a reasonable space-time. More-over, we will assume that such a theory will not lead tolarge violations of the basic space-time conservation laws.With these assumptions, we now look at the situation onthe region just before the singularity: There, from theenergetic point of view, we have the following: i) Theincoming positive energy flux corresponding to the leftmoving pulse that formed the BH. ii) The incoming flux(from region II to region III in Fig. 1) of the left movingvacuum state for the rest of the modes which is knownto be negative and essentially equal to the total HawkingRadiation flux. iii) The flux associated with the rightmoving modes that crossed the collapsing matter (fromregion I’ to III) but fell directly into the singularity.

The only energy missing in the budget above is thatassociated with the Hawking radiation flux. If energy isto be essentially conserved by QG, it seems that the onlypossibility for the state in the “post singularity region”is one corresponding to a very small value of the energy.Such state of negligible energy might be associated withsome remnant radiation, or perhaps a compact and stableremnant with something close to Planck’s mass. Thosepossibilities would represent a case were a small amountof information survives the whole process, and will be ig-nored hereafter for simplicity. Instead, we will considerthe simplest alternative: A zero energy momentum statecorresponding to a “trivial” region of space-time. We

7

denote it by |0p.s.〉 (post-singularity). In other words,we complete our characterization of the evolution, by as-suming that the effects of QG can be represented by thecuring of the singularity, and by the transformation:

|Ψin,τ 〉 = NCFnj |Fnj〉ext ⊗ |Fnj〉int ⊗ |Pulse〉L

→ NCFnj |Fnj〉ext ⊗ |0p.s.〉.

The above result might seem a bit unsettling, because weend up with a pure quantum state, while, if informationis lost in the full process, we should end with a mixed(thermal) density matrix. The point, of course, is thatthe theory does not predict which one of the possiblepure states we will end up with. That depends on theparticular realization of the random functions wα thatappears in the CSL evolution equation.

Thus, as a consequence of the inherent stochasticity ofthe theory, all we can do is to make statistical predictions.In fact, we can easily do that by considering the casewhere an ensemble of systems are identically prepared inthe same initial state:

|Ψin〉 = |0in〉R ⊗ |Pulse〉L.

We then describe this ensemble by the pure density ma-trix ρ(τ0) = |Ψin〉 〈Ψin|. In each case the pulse will leadto the formation of a black hole. As before, CSL evolu-tion is the dominant where the curvature becomes large,i.e., before reaching the singularity, or more precisely thequantum gravity regime (i.e. the hypersurface Στs−ε).The evolution from initial hypersurface Στ0 to an inter-mediate hypersurface Στ is then given by

ρ(τ) = T e−∫ ττ0dτ ′

λ(τ′)2

∑nj [N

Lnj−N

Rnj ]

2

ρ(τ0). (9)

We express ρ(τ0) = |0〉in 〈0|in in terms of the out quan-tization (ignoring left moving modes as they are not rel-evant for the external observers):

ρ(τ0) = N2∑F,G

e−πΛ (EF+EG) |F 〉int ⊗ |F 〉ext 〈G|int ⊗ 〈G|ext,

where Λ is the parameter of the CGHS model and EF ≡∑nj ωnjFnj is the energy of the state |F 〉ext with respect

to late-time observers near IR+.

The operators Nnj and their eigenvalues are indepen-dent of τ . Thus we have,

ρ(τ) = N2∑F,G

e−πΛ (EF+EG)B|F 〉int ⊗ |F 〉ext 〈G|int ⊗ 〈G|ext,

where B ≡ e−

∑nj(Fnj−Gnj)

2∫ ττ0dτ ′

λ(τ′)2 . In general, this

equation does not represent a thermal state. Neverthe-less, as τ approaches the singularity, say at τ = τs, theintegral

∫ ττ0dτ ′λ(τ ′)/2 diverges since λ(τ) becomes large

on hypersurfaces of high curvature (as we have assumed

γ ≥ 1 in (6)). Then, as τ → τs the non diagonal elementsof ρ(τ) cancel out and we have:

limτ→τs

ρ(τ) = N2∑F

e−2πΛ EF |F 〉int ⊗ |F 〉ext 〈F |int ⊗ 〈F |ext.

If we now include the left moving pulse, and take intoaccount what we have assumed about the role of QG,we obtain a density matrix characterizing the ensembleafter the singularity (on Στf in Fig. 3), which is given by

ρFinal = N2∑F

e−2πΛ EF |F 〉ext ⊗ |0p.s.〉 〈F |ext ⊗ 〈0p.s.| .

≡ |0p.s.〉 〈0p.s.| ⊗ ρextThermal (10)

That is, we started with an ensemble described by a purestate of the quantum field corresponding to the vacuumplus an initially collapsing pulse, and the correspondingspace-time initial data on past null infinity, and ended up,with a proper thermal state. In other words, we endedup with a proper mixture (recall the terminology from[25, 26]), characterizing an ensemble of systems with athermal distribution on future null infinity followed byan empty region.

V. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSIONS

We have studied, at the quantitative level, a concreterealization of the idea that a resolution of the black holeinformation conundrum might be related to the solutionof the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. Wehave seen how a proposal developed for addressing thelatter can be adapted to the black hole setting, and thatby assuming that the parameter controlling the depar-ture from the usual quantum mechanical unitary evolu-tion increases with space-time curvature, we are led toa picture whereby the information loss, one can naivelyinfer as occurring in the latter case, becomes a direct andactual result of the modified dynamics. This leads to asituation where the information loss associated with thefull evaporation of a black hole via Hawking radiationcan be seen, not as a paradoxical result, but as the nat-ural outcome from the fundamental quantum evolutionthat accounts for the physics of both micro and macroobjects.

Of course, we assumed that a QG theory would re-solve the singularity, and otherwise be reasonable so thatit does not lead to gross violations of conservation laws,with potentially observable implications in the regionswhere something close to a classical space-time descrip-tion is expected.

We should also acknowledge that in the course of thiswork we made several simplifying assumptions, and ig-nored some issues that are not easy to deal with, but wethink that there are good reasons to expect that the gen-eral picture we obtained is rather robust. We next dealbriefly with the most important of these approximationsand issues:

8

1. Choice of collapse operators: The general choice ofthe operators Aα controlling the CSL dynamics is clearlyan open issue. As we already mentioned, a complete the-ory should specify, for all possible circumstances, and in amanner that depends only on the dynamics of the systemin question, what determines such operators. It seemsthat they must correspond to a kind of smeared positionoperators, in the case where the system can be describedin terms of the non-relativistic quantum mechanics ofmany particles. The choice of the particle number op-erator in the interior of black hole region that we madein section III B, was clearly done for convenience. In afully covariant theory we expect these operators to belocally constructed from quantum fields, and the num-ber operators are clearly non-local. It should be pointedout, however, that in these theories, one can rewrite thesame CSL evolution in terms of various and very differentchoices of operators, as is in fact shown explicitly in thework [30]. On the other hand, as we already noted in con-nection with EPR-B situations, the collapse of the stateinto eigenvalues of an operator associated with a certainspace-time region has no influence whatsoever, in the ef-fective description, in terms of a density matrix, for thestate restricted to space-time regions that are causallydisconnected. Of course, in the case of an EPR exper-iment, one could still consider the correlations betweenthe outcomes of Alice vs. Bob measurements, and thosewill clearly depend on what quantity did each one mea-sure. However, in our case, the state of the subsystemcorresponding to Bob (i.e. the matter field in the in-side BH Region) will simply disappear. That is, in thepost Quantum Gravity region the state will correspondto a sort of vacuum state containing almost no energyor information, so that there would be (almost) no othercorrelations to look for. We fully expect such robustness(i.e., independence of the precise choice of collapse oper-ators in the region III) to apply to the characterization ofthe state of the field in I +

R in terms of a density matrix.2. Relativistic Covariance: The model we have em-

ployed is based on a non-relativistic spontaneous collapsetheory, and it is clear that a satisfactory proposal to dealwith the issue at hand should be based on a fully co-variant theory. We should note, in this regard, the earlystudies [38], and the recent specific proposals for spe-cial relativistic versions of these type of theories[39–41].In those theories the evolution, in the interaction pic-ture approach we have been using, should be describablein terms of a Tomonaga-Schwinger evolution equation8

where, instead of the interaction hamiltonian, we wouldhave the corresponding collapse theory density operator.

8 Recall that the Tomonaga -Schwinger equation iδ |Ψ(Σ)〉 =HI(x) |Ψ(Σ)〉 δΣ(x) gives the change in the interaction picturefor the state associated with the corresponding hyper surfacesΣ′ and Σ, when the former is obtained from the latter by an in-finitesimal deformation with four volume δΣ(x) around the pointx in Σ. We are also ignoring here the formal aspects that indicatethat strictly speaking the interaction picture does not exist.

We hope eventually to adapt the present scenario to thoseproposals, a task we expect to be rather nontrivial.

3. Choice of foliation: We have presented the analysisusing a very particular foliation. Within a covariant set-ting, we can expect that any specific physical predictionshould be independent of the foliation. One importantconsequence would be that, whenever we consider a fo-liation passing through a region of space-time which isfar from the singularity, the changes in the state aroundthat point, associated with the CSL type modifications,should have effects in local operators that will be verysmall, simply because the CSL-like parameter λ will besmall there. This indicates that we should not encounteranything like “firewalls” in the region of the horizon9

which is far from the singularity.4. Energy conservation: One might be concerned that,

when considering an individual situation, the energy ofthe initial pulse of matter might not be exactly equalto that corresponding to the state with definite numberof particles |F 〉extR that characterizes the modified mat-ter content in the asymptotic region, once the black holehas evaporated completely. The first thing to note isthat CSL, in general, leads to small violations of energyconservation and that issue, in fact, has led to the es-tablishment the most stringent bounds on the parameterλ (although modified covariant theories might evade thisproblems altogether. See for instance the detailed dis-cussions in [24, 40]). The second thing to note is thatif there is small amount of energy remaining inside theblack hole region, and very close to the singularity, sim-ply because the positive and negative energy fluxes donot cancel each other exactly, there would seem to be noproblem, at least in principle, if such energy is radiatedafter the singularity. In that way, most of the initial en-ergy will be radiated in the standard Hawking radiation,and a very small amount of energy, carrying a minus-cule amount of information, would remain to be radiatedtowards infinity from the “quantum gravity region”.

5. Back reaction: We must note that, in all the dis-cussion so far, we have omitted the very important issueof back reaction. The changes in the space-time metricas a response to those in state of the matter fields, areessential, if we want to account for the decrease of themass of the black hole as a result of the Hawking radi-ation taking energy to infinity. That, in turn, is an es-sential aspect of the arguments involving overall energyconservation. Going further, the change in the space-time metric, and, in particular, in the black hole’s mass,and its “instantaneous Hawking temperature” in a morerealistic model, are expected to modify the nature of theradiation, so that, the “late time” radiation would be, ina sense, emitted at a higher temperature than the “early

9 Our references to “the horizon” within the setting where thesingularity has been replaced by the “quantum gravity region”,should be taken to indicate the boundary of the past domain ofdependence of the said region.

9

times” one, leading to the runaway effects that are associ-ated with the expectation of an explosive disappearanceof the black hole itself. It is clear that all such effectsare extremely important in obtaining a realistic pictureof the entire history of formation and complete evapo-ration of a black hole. However, there seems to be noreason to expect that those important changes will mod-ify, in an essential way, the workings of the proposal wehave been considering here. In fact, the back reactionis essential, in accounting for the decrease of the Bondimass to a very small value, as one considers the very lateparts of I +

R . This, in turn, is what allows us to consider,matching the asymptotic region with the space-time thatis expected to emerge on the other side of the quantumgravity region that replaces the “would be singularity”,and which, as we have indicated, should be thought asessentially empty and flat, (with the caveats discussed inthe item above).

On the other hand, it seems that theories involvingspontaneous reduction of the quantum state of matterfields should facilitate, at least at the conceptual level,the treatment of back reaction10, simply because thereis a clear state that should be used in evaluating the ex-pectation value of the energy momentum tensor at eachhypersurface: in our case the state associated to that hy-perurface by the CSL dynamics. Of course, as indicatedbefore, a fully satisfactory account would have to relyon a fully covariant theory corresponding to general rela-tivistic generalizations of those recently proposed in[39–41], and, as discussed in those works, the appropriatestate to be used in computing the expectation value ofan operator associated with a given space-time “event” p,would be the state associated with the past null cone of p(more precisely one would need to consider open regionsaround p and the state associated with the boundary ofthe causal past of those). Nevertheless, and despite thediscussion below, it is clear that the technical aspects ofthe treatment of back reaction need to be further ana-lyzed and developed (particularly in view of the footnote10 below, and related comments) if one wants to have aviable, even if only approximate, semi-classical accountof the black hole evaporation process.

6. Reliance on semi-classical gravity: The previousitem forces us to consider the basic viability of semi-classical gravity, the scheme where one treats the space-time metric at the classical level, but uses as a sourcein Einstein’s equation the quantum expectation value ofthe energy momentum tensor. This question has beenconsidered in a well known paper by Page and Geilker[43]. That work is often referred to, as indicating thatsemi-classical gravity is simply at odds with experimen-tal results. However, what is not often noted is thatsuch conclusion is only valid in the contexts where quan-tum mechanical evolution does not include any sort of

10 In the standard treatments there seems to be an ambiguity re-garding the use of “in-in” or “in-out” expectation values [42].

measurement-related or spontaneous collapse. Thus itcertainly would not be relevant for our proposal. Onthe other hand, it is clear that if one wants to incorpo-rate the reduction or the collapse of the quantum stateof matter fields, the semi-classical equation, taken to befundamental and 100% accurate, would not be viable, asit is simply inconsistent11. The point however is that ifone takes the metric description of space-time as merelyan effective and approximate characterization, in anal-ogy, say, with Navier -Stokes (NS) equation in hydro-dynamics, one would not expect the equation to holdexactly, or to be valid universally. That is, just as therewould be situations where the NS would not be an ap-propriate characterization of the fluid, such as when anocean wave breaks, and in which one can expect impor-tant local departures from the equation, one can expectsomething analogous to occur with the semi-classical Ein-stein equation. This, however, would not invalidate theequation in its use for some suitable macroscopic and ap-proximate characterizations. More precise characteriza-tions, both in the treatment of fluids and of gravitation,can be expected to involve higher order and more com-plicated terms, and, of course eventually, as the naturalscale of the more fundamental and underlying theory isapproached, one would expect the complete breakdownof the effective description. Some initial steps in the ex-ploration of the formal adaptation of this approach tothe use of semi-classical gravity in a cosmological con-text have been considered in [44]. We should also notethe work [45] in which the general arguments againstsemi-classical gravity were critically considered, conclud-ing that they are not as robust as it might have seemedinitially.

Finally, it is worth mentioning a rather speculative,but very suggestive point made in [3]. The general pic-ture that one obtains in this way of dealing with the BHinformation question has the kind of intrinsic self consis-tency of a boot-strap model: if black hole evaporation isassociated with loss of information and departure fromquantum unitarity, then, it is natural, to consider thatvirtual, microscopic black holes, generated ”off-shell” inradiative quantum processes[46], should themselves leadto loss of information and departure of unitarity in allsituations, and that could, perhaps, be the source of theeffects which one parametrizes, at the effective level, asthe modifications of quantum mechanics represented inCSL and related theories. The tail-baiting snake picture,would then, be complete.

We reiterate that, at this point, this work representsjust a toy model, as, in particular, all items above wouldneed to be addressed in any realistic version. However,we believe that reasonable models with the basic featureswe have discussed here do offer a rather interesting path

11 The fact is that ∇a〈Tab〉 6= 0 during the collapse of the quantumstate, so 〈Tab〉 it can not be equated with Gab, which identicallysatisfies ∇aGab = 0 .

10

to resolving the long standing conundrum known as the“Black Hole Information Loss Paradox” and, to do so inconnection with the attempts to resolve, what we, andvarious other colleagues, but certainly not the majority,regard as a very unsettling aspect of our current under-standing of quantum theory: the “measurement prob-

lem”.Acknowledgment: We thank Robert Wald, Philip

Pearle and Elias Okon for discussions. DS is sup-ported by the CONACYT-Mexico Grant No. 220738 andUNAM-PAPIIT Grant No. IN107412. SKM and LO aresupported by DGAPA fellowships from UNAM.

[1] S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 14, 2460 (1976).[2] R. M. Wald, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space-

time and Black Hole Thermodynamics (The Universityof Chicago Press, 1994).

[3] E. Okon and D. Sudarsky. Found. Phys. 45, Issue 4, 461-470 (2015) [arXiv: 1406.2011 [gr-qc]].

[4] J. M. Maldacena, JHEP 0304, 021 (2003).[5] A. Ashtekar, V. Taveras and M. Varadarajan, Phys. Rev.

Lett. 100, 211302 (2008).[6] S. D. Mathur, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 462

(2013) 012034.[7] M. Bojowald [arXiv:1409.3157 [gr-qc]].[8] A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski and J. Sully, JHEP

1302, 062 (2013).[9] S. W. Hawking [arXiv:1401.5761 [hep-th]]; B. D. Chowd-

hury and L. M. Krauss [arXiv:1409.0187 [gr-qc]].[10] J. Maldacena and L. Susskind, Fortsch. Phys. 61, 781

(2013) [arXiv:1306.0533 [hep-th]].[11] R. Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (Oxford Univer-

sity Press, 1989)); in Physics meets philosophy at thePlanck scale, edited by C. Callender (Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 2001).

[12] R. Penrose, in Quantum Gravity II, edited by C. J. Isham,R. Penrose and D. W. Sciama (Clarendon Press, Oxford,1981).

[13] E. Wigner, Am. J. of Physics 31, 6 (1963); A. Lagget,Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 69, 80 (1980); J. Bell, in Quan-tum Gravity II, edited by C. J. Isham, R. Penrose andD. W. Sciama (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1981); D. Al-bert, Quantum Mechanics and Experience (Harvard Uni-versity Press, 1992), Chap. 4 and 5; D. Home, Concep-tual Foundations of Quantum Physics: an overview frommodern perspectives (Plenum, 1997), Chap. 2.

[14] For reviews: M. Jammer, Philosophy of quantum me-chanics. The interpretations of quantum mechanics inhistorical perspective (John Wiley and Sons, New York,1974); R. Omnes, The Interpretation of Quantum Me-chanics (Princeton University Press 1994); and the morespecific critique: S. L. Adler, Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod.Phys. 34, 135-142 (2003).

[15] J. S. Bell, (Cambridge University Press, 1987);Phys.World 3, 33 (1990).

[16] T. Maudlin, Topoi 14(1), 715 (1995).[17] D. Bohm and J. Bub, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 453 (1966).[18] P. Pearle, Phys. Rev. D 13, 857 (1976); Int. J. Theor.

Phys. 18, 489 (1979).[19] G. Ghirardi, A. Rimini and T. Weber, in Quantum Proba-

bility and Applications, edited by A. L. Accardi (Springer,Heidelberg,1985), pages 223-232; Phys.Rev. D 34, 470(1986).

[20] P. Pearle, Phys. Rev. A 39, 2277 (1989).[21] G. Ghirardi, P. Pearle and A. Rimini, Phys. Rev. A 42,

7889 (1990).

[22] L. Diosi, Phys. Lett. A 105, 4 (1984), p. 199-202; Phys.Lett. A 120, 377 (1987) ; Phys. Rev. A 40, 1165 (1989).

[23] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. A 85, 062116 (2012)[arXiv:1109.6462 [quant-ph]].

[24] W. G. Unruh and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 52, 2176(1995).

[25] B. d’Espagnat, Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Me-chanics (Addison Wesley, 2nd. edition, 1976).

[26] C.G. Timpson and H.R. Brown, Int. J. Quantum Inf.3(4), 679 (2005).

[27] C. G. Callan, S. B. Giddings, J. A. Harvey, and A. Stro-minger, Phys. Rev. D 45, R1005 (1992).

[28] For a recent review see for instance: A. Bassi, K. Lochan,S. Satin, T. P. Singh and H. Ulbricht, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 471 (2013) [arXiv:1204.4325 [quant-ph]].

[29] J. Martin, V. Vennin and P. Peter [arXiv:1207.2086]; S.Das, K. Lochan, S. Sahu, and T.P. Singh, Phys. Rev. D,88(8), 085020 (2013) [arXiv:1304.5094 [astro-ph.CO]].

[30] P. Canate, P. Pearl and D. Sudarsky, Phys. Rev. D, 87,104024 (2013) [arXiv:1211.3463[gr-qc]].

[31] For a more detailed discussion and motivation of thisissue see: S. K. Modak, L. Ortız, I. Pena and D. Sudarsky[arXiv:1406.4898].

[32] S. B. Giddings and W. M. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D 46,2486 (1992); A. Fabbri and J. Navarro-Salas, ModelingBlack Hole Evaporation (Imperial College Press, London,2005).

[33] See for instance the discussions in: D. J. Bedingham,[arXiv:0907.2327 [quant-ph]], and also in G. C. Ghirardi,Foundations of Physics Letters 9, 313 (1996); G. C. Ghi-rardi, A. Rimini and T. Weber, Letter Al Nuovo Cimento27, 293 (1980); G. C. Ghirardi, R. Grassi, J. Butter-field and G. N. Fleming, Foundations of Physics, 23, 341(1993); G. C. Ghirardi and R. Grassi, Studies in Historyand Philosophy of Modern Physics 25, 397 (1994).

[34] The original CSL theory was developed as a modificationof non-relativistic many particle quantum mechanics andthe version we are envisioning would be a formulationwritten in a field theoretical language.

[35] E. Okon and D. Sudarsky, Found. Phys. 44, 114 (2014).[36] R. Wald, private communication.[37] For more details see the reference in [31].[38] P. Pearle, in Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty, edited by

A. Miller (Plenum, New York, 1990) p. 193-214; G. Ghi-rardi, R. Grassi and P. Pearle, Found. Phys. (J.S. Bell’s60th birthday issue) 20, 1271 (1990).

[39] R. Tumulka, J. Stat. Phys. 125, 821 (2006); Proc. R.Soc. A 462, 1897 (2006).

[40] D. Bedingham, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 306, 012034 (2011).[41] P. Pearle [arXiv:1412.6723 [quant-ph]].[42] L. Parker and D. Toms, Quantum Field Theory in Curved

Spacetime (Cambridge University Press, 2009). See pages182-183 and references therein.

11

[43] D. N. Page and C. D. Geilker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 979(1981).

[44] A. Diez-Tejedor and D. Sudarsky, JCAP 045, 1207(2012) [arXiv:1108.4928 [gr-qc]].

[45] S. Carlip, Class. Quant. Grav. 25 154010 (2008).[46] Private discussion with Prof. George Matsas.