4.7 Article

Uncertainty relation in Schwarzschild spacetime

期刊

PHYSICS LETTERS B
卷 743, 期 -, 页码 198-204

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.02.058

关键词

-

资金

  1. ARC [DP140101492]
  2. NSFC 973 program [2010CB922904]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We explore the entropic uncertainty relation in the curved background outside a Schwarzschild black hole, and find that Hawking radiation introducesa nontrivial modification on the uncertainty bound for particular observer, therefore it could be witnessed by proper uncertainty game experimentally. We first investigate an uncertainty game between a free falling observer and his static partner holding a quantum memory initially entangled with the quantum system to be measured. Due to the information loss from Hawking decoherence, we find an inevitable increase of the uncertainty on the outcome of measurements in the view of static observer, which is dependent on the mass of the black hole, the distance of observer from event horizon, and the mode frequency of quantum memory. To illustrate the generality of this paradigm, we relate the entropic uncertainty bound with other uncertainty probe, e.g., time-energy uncertainty. In an alternative game between two static players, we show that quantum information of qubit can be transferred to quantum memory through a bath of fluctuating quantum fields outside the black hole. For a particular choice of initial state, we show that the Hawking decoherence cannot counteract entanglement generation after the dynamical evolution of system, which triggers an effectively reduced uncertainty bound that violates the intrinsic limit -log(2)c. Numerically estimation for a proper choice of initial state shows that our result is comparable with possible real experiments. Finally, a discussion on the black hole firewall paradox in the context of entropic uncertainty relation is given. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据