Results in Physics 13 (2019) 102188

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Physics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rinp

Black hole as a model of computation T

G.R. Andrews III
Independent Researcher, 8805 Jenny Ln Fredericksburg, VA 22407, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper focuses on an alternative, more physically realistic model of computation than Etesi and Németi’s
Black hole computation relativistic computer in a Malament-Hogarth spacetime (2002) that uses the black hole itself combined with an
Kerr/CFT correspondence external observer equipped with a source and some method of measurement of gamma-rays, as opposed to
Holographic principle sending a classical computer into a black hole and exploiting the properties of the spacetime to achieve hy-
Information theory
percomputation. The source of output, Hawking radiation, is considered along with the constraints imposed by
Gamma-ray spectroscopy
Shannon entropy
the holographic principle which limit the number of degrees of freedom in the system and consequently the
maximum usable information. The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy is converted from the traditional form in terms
of the horizon area to that of the Shannon entropy, establishing an analogy between the physical and compu-
tational perspectives of the system. Next examples are considered to establish the approximate order of the
necessary excitation energy and the resulting gamma-ray interactions which form the input from the observer.
Finally, the Turing completeness of the language for this model is considered through a simulation of the Turing
machine. The goal is to introduce a model of computation that can later be used to study the relationship
between computability and physical systems.

Introduction Geometry of holographic duals

In contrast to past research on computation in black holes which
focused on the idea of sending a computer into the black hole and ex-
ploiting its relativistic properties (as in the case of [7], here it is pro-
posed that the black hole itself be used as a model of computation,
motivated by the unique properties arising from holographic duality
and the greater feasibility of such a system in the real world. This is
achieved by using the energy states of molecules behind the event
horizon as the states of the computer, with the movement of the ex-
ternal observer measuring the system corresponding to the shifting of
the computer’s tape and the change in states combined with the re-
sulting Hawking radiation corresponding to the output. A stream of
photons at the appropriate energy levels is used as input to change the
states of the computer. In this way a correspondence is formed between
the physical and computational models of the system which may then
contribute to a proof of its Turing completeness.
In the following sections the methods for essential components of
the computer will be developed which will then contribute to the proof
of the Turing completeness of this model of computation. The goal is to
introduce a model of computation which can be used to investigate the
effects of physical constraints imposed by the holographic principle and
the Kerr/CFT correspondence on computation and vice versa.
The AdS/CFT correspondence allows for a dual description of an
anti-de Sitter space and a conformal field theory of one less dimension,
one of the most well known of which is the correspondence between the
AdS5 × S5 space and the D = 4, Ɲ = 4 supersymmetric SU(N) Yang-
Mills theory. For a realistic model of a black hole we need to find the
holographic dual to a Kerr solution, since we assume that the black hole
is in an equilibrium state and has a nondegenerate event horizon [16].
This duality is called the Kerr/CFT correspondence and the associated
conformal field theory is a chiral half of a two-dimensional CFT [9].
The symmetry of the two-dimensional CFT is described by two co-
pies of the Virasoro algebra with generators that satisfy the below
commutation relations, where m, n ∈ Z and c denotes the central
charge.
c
[Lm , Ln] = (m − n) Lm + n + (m3 − m) δm + n,0
12
[c, Ln] = 0
We only consider one copy corresponding to a chiral half of the CFT.
Representations of the Virasoro algebra arise from the highest weight
state |h > = ϕ(0)|0 > which satisfies L0|h > = h|h > , where ϕ is a
primary field and h denotes the conformal weight [8].

E-mail address: gandrews20143@gmail.com.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2019.102188
Received 19 February 2019; Accepted 9 March 2019
Available online 14 March 2019
2211-3797/ © 2019 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
G.R. Andrews Results in Physics 13 (2019) 102188

Black hole output Hawking entropy to the form of a Shannon entropy. This analogy arises
from the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy’s dependence on the horizon
The fact that particles cannot escape black holes through classical area [17]. The entanglement (or von Neumann) entropy may be written
means (arising from the second law of black hole thermodynamics [1] in similar terms to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, as shown below in
poses a challenge to obtaining an observable output, however Hawking the case of a ℝ1,d conformal field theory [17].
radiation circumvents this problem through quantum tunneling. Sec-
Ah
tion 2.1 considers Hawking radiation, a process described by the tun- SBH =
4GN
neling of particles out of the potential well behind the black hole hor-
izon [10,14]. A relationship between the energy of the tunneling shell A γA
and the emission rate from the black hole is also established. Section 2.2 SA = −trA ρA logρA =
considers the constraints imposed by the holographic principle on in- 4GN(d + 2)
formation density in the black hole.
ρA = trB |Ψ > < Ψ|

Hawking radiation This entanglement entropy itself may be written in the form of the
Shannon entropy [3].
Hawking radiation provides a source of information via tunneling
that avoids the problem caused by the second law of black hole ther- ρA = ∑ λj |j > < j| → SA = − ∑ λjlogλj
j j
modynamics. Hawking presents such an argument for the emission of
particles (1975). Furthermore, Parikh and Wilczek [14] derive this The next step is to relate the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy directly
phenomenon directly from the description of it as a tunneling process. to the Shannon entropy, which intuitively follows from the previously
The exponential part of the emission rate Γ from Hawking radiation shown correspondence involving the entanglement entropy and is
is related to the mass of the black hole and the energy of the particle shown below. Let Ah denote the area of the horizon which corresponds
that will potentially escape: to the area of the holographic screen. Let Ω and β denote the inside and
ω
Γ e−8πω (M − 2 ) outside of the black hole respectively. Then we change the form of SBH
to that of the entanglement entropy, writing the density matrix μβ in
Parikh & Wilczek [14] from this relation by introducing pro- terms of an orthonormal basis |Ψi > .
portionality constant α we may obtain a graph relating Γ and ω which is
shown in Fig. 1. Ah
SBH = → SBH = −trβ μβ logμβ
According to Fig. 1 Γ may only be made large if ω is either small or 4GN
large relative to the mass M of the black hole (close to 0 in the former
μβ = trΩ |Ψ > < Ψ|
case and 2 M in the latter case). Since M < 0 is ignored we must excite
the particles to be emitted past ω = 2 M (where Γ will blow up) in order
Now we may write SBH in the form of the Shannon entropy by
to achieve arbitrarily large values of Γ (which must be large enough in
writing μβ in terms of its eigenvectors |Ψj > .
order that output from the black hole may be detected by distant ob-
servers in a reasonable amount of time). μβ = ∑ μ βj |Ψj > < Ψj|
The mass of the black hole may be calculated through its relation to j
the Hawking temperature and proper distance from the black hole in
Rindler coordinates [4]. This will involve a measurement of the tem- ⎛
perature at a sufficiently far distance from the black hole since it varies SBH = −trβ (μβ logμβ ) = −trβ
⎜
∑ μ βj |Ψj > < Ψj| ∑ logμ βi |Ψi > < Ψi|⎞⎟
inversely with the distance. ⎝ j i
⎠
= − ∑ < Ψk | ∑ μ βj |Ψj > < Ψj | ∑ logμ βi |Ψi > < Ψi| Ψk >
k j i
The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy as a Shannon entropy
= − ∑ δkj μ βj δji logμ βi δik = − ∑ μ βj logμ βj
To develop the correspondence between the physical and compu- k , j, i j

tational interpretations of the model, we will convert the Bekenstein-

All of this work merely serves to show the similarity between the
Bekenstein-Hawking entropy and the holographic entanglement en-
tropy and its resulting potential application to our computer. For this
reason we are interested in whether the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy
may be physically interpreted as a holographic entanglement entropy.
Solodukhin considers this question at length, posing several problems
which must be solved in order to make such a connection (2011): (1)
that the UV divergence of the entanglement entropy may render it in-
consistent with the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy which is finite; (2) that
the entanglement entropy depends on the number of types of fields
unlike the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy; and (3) that the different be-
havior of non-minimally coupled fields such as gauge bosons and
gravitons with respect to the entanglement entropy may affect the
possibility of the interpretation of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy as
an entanglement entropy.
Examples where the two entropies are equal include a model with
minimally coupled fields [18], a 3-brane with the Z2 symmetry group in
an AdS spacetime [11,18], and the Kaluza-Klein model [18]. We will
only consider the first example here for the sake of simplicity, clarity,
and brevity. In a minimally coupled field theory with N0 scalars and N1/
Fig. 1. Emission rate as a function of escaping particle energy.
2 Dirac fermions, the induced gravitational action reads

2
G.R. Andrews
1 High energy excitations
Wind = −
16πGind
∫E R g d 4x
with
1 N
= , N = N0 + 2N1/2
Gind 12π ∊2
where N denotes the total number of field species in the model. We can
show that
N 1
Sent = A (Σ) = A (Σ) = SBH ,
48π ∊2 4Gind
noting that the renormalization statement assures that Gind and Sent are
inversely proportional. This example circumvents (1) and (2), however
the absence of any non-minimally coupled fields leaves (3) unanswered.
The general solution to calculating the entanglement entropy is
believed by some to be solvable with a string theoretic approach [18],
which Susskind and Uglum proposed [19]. A direct calculation of the
entanglement entropy would allow for a complete answer to the com-
parison of the Bekenstein-Hawking and holographic entanglement en-
tropies. The complexity of such an approach, however, has rendered
progress towards such a solution slow. This is one topic of interest for
future research in the development of this model of computation.
Arguments from the holographic principle
We now turn our attention to the holographic principle, which re-
lates the world volume to the boundary of the system and from which
arises the AdS/CFT correspondence, starting with the Bekenstein bound
in order to obtain a limit on the usable information for a given volume.
The Bekenstein bound limits the maximum amount of entropy in the
system which is related to the number of quantum states in that system
[5]. It too may be considered an analogue to some relation involving
information entropy like in the case of the Bekenstein-Hawking en-
tropy. The equation for this bound is given below.
2πkER
S≤
hc
By considering this analogy and the relation between the number of
degrees of freedom in the given volume and the horizon area we may
conclude that the holographic principle limits the usable information
for a given volume by limiting its number of degrees of freedom, i.e. the
number of quantum states in the system. This intuitively follows from
the analogous limitations on information density imposed by the
number of individual states of a computer (which for the purposes of
this discussion is considered to be a Turing machine). The corre-
sponding bound from an information theoretic perspective is given
below, where E is the energy and I is the amount of information en-
closed by a sphere with radius R, which Bekenstein proposed [20,2].
2πER M ⎞⎟ ⎛ R ⎞ bits
I≤ = 2.57 × 10 45 ⎛⎜
hc ln2 ⎝ 1kilogram ⎠ ⎝ 1meter ⎠
Thus we have a bound for the maximum usable information for a
topologically spherical black hole which depends on the mass and ra-
dius. Further work will involve describing Hawking radiation for a Kerr
solution through the Kerr/CFT correspondence near the horizon and an
associated string theory and finding a stronger information bound.
Black hole input
In order to excite the particles inside the black hole and thus change
their states we will consider irradiating them with photons. Fig. 1
showed that the emission rate Γ peaks for values of ω larger than 2 M
and close to 0, which sections 3.1 and 3.2 consider respectively.
3
Results in Physics 13 (2019) 102188
In order to establish the practicality of excitations on the order of
2 M we must estimate the required energy levels for a realistic black
hole. For example, we may choose its mass to equal to that of earth.
M = 5.972 × 1024kg
Then the required energy ω to achieve the emission rate Γ = α may
be approximated.
ω = 2M = 1.194 × 1023cm−1
Converting to the more familiar energy units, we have
E = 1.480 × 1019eV ,
which corresponds to the energy of gamma-rays. In general the energy
required to achieve ω = 2 M necessitates the use of gamma-rays for
realistic black holes (those that can be detected using current methods).
Low energy excitations
In order to maximize the emission rate ω must be minimized to the
smallest energy which the contents of the black hole will absorb.
Continuing with our example and letting Γ = α/2, we obtain ω.
4π 2M 2 − π ln2
ω=M− ≈ 0cm−1
2π
Since the difference caused by the π ln 2 term is small when M is
large (requiring extreme precision when calculating the solution), it is
advisable to find a bound for ω. A well known inequality gives us
4π 2M 2 − π ln2 4π 2M 2 π ln2
> −
2π 2π 2π
From this inequality we have a bound for ω:
π ln2
ω< = 0.235m−1 = 2.35 × 10−3cm−1
2π
E < 2.91 × 10−7eV
This corresponds to the Very High Frequency (VHF) range. The
calculation shows that a high-energy excitation is preferable due to the
higher attainable emission rate.
Gamma ray interactions
Gamma rays with energies of more than 1 TeV, such as was con-
sidered in the example in Section 4.1, mostly interact with infrared
photons with a wavelength greater than 1 μm [12]. For a typical high
energy excitation (> 10 MeV) caused by gamma-rays such as the ex-
ample in Section 4.1, pair production gamma-ray interactions are
dominant [15]. In such an interaction an electron-positron pair is cre-
ated provided that a sufficient energy 2m0c2 (the mass of the electron-
positron pair) is supplied by the gamma-ray (Rittersdorf). When a po-
sitron annihilates an electron upon contact, two 0.511 MeV photons are
emitted (Rittersdorf). Secondary electron escape and Bremsstrahlung
escape may be disregarded due to the localization of particles caused by
the black hole’s gravitational pull. This leaves only tunneling via
Hawking radiation as a viable method of escape. For our example black
hole the 0.511 MeV photons do not have sufficient energy for the
“critical point” Γ = α to be achieved. Thus for a black hole with the
mass of earth the emission rate for the photons created via annihilation
in pair production gamma-ray interactions is small.
Future research could examine the process of pair production near
the horizon of a Kerr black hole taking into account the Kerr/CFT
correspondence and the associated string theory.
G.R. Andrews Results in Physics 13 (2019) 102188

Turing Completeness of Language for Black Hole where the propagator

− − 1
Since as we have seen the black hole possesses inherent properties < X (z , z ) X (w, w ) > = − log|z − w|
2
which are analogues to components of a Turing machine, the most
obvious and direct way to prove its Turing completeness is through a with z = ½(σ1 + iσ0) and 2idz^dz ̅ = dσ1^dσ0. X(z, z)̅ may be written in
simulation of the Turing machine, showing that corresponding parts terms of left and right movers (thus separating holomorphic and anti-
perform equivalent operations. holomorphic dependence):
The contents of the black hole itself serve as the tape and may be − 1 −
scaled to an arbitrarily large size by increasing the mass of the black X (z , z ) = (xL (z ) + xR (z ))
2
hole; therefore the requirement for an indefinitely extensible tape is
satisfied. In this model the observer serves as a head which can move in where the corresponding propagators are
− − − −
order to shift the tape and read the output from the machine via < xL (z ) xL (w ) > = −log(z − w ), < xR (z ) xR (w ) > = −log(z − w ).
Hawking radiation. The states assigned to each position on the tape are
encoded in the energy levels for each unit of matter. The external ob- This quantization procedure is used for the case of the free boson
server is limited in the number of measurable states by the choice of and is described far more completely in texts on conformal field theory
equipment (since the energy levels associated with all types of particles such as [8].
are quantized and there is a finite amount of energy in the universe). To differentiate between different input symbols in Σ we use the
Finally, there exists a set of instructions which form a Turing-complete energy of the photon from the Schrodinger equation absorbed by the
language from these physical components: the state of a position on the black hole.
tape may be changed by irradiating that particle with light, the head
may be moved, and information may be read by the head from the Tape alphabet Γ
Hawking radiation.
We will now define the corresponding Turing machine in more There are massive particles behind the black hole horizon which
formal terms to present directions for future research in more complete form the tape. The tape alphabet Γ is composed of the set of possible
physical descriptions of each of the components. This Turing machine is energy eigenstates for the corresponding unit quantum systems (i.e. the
represented by smallest unit which is equivalent to a single location on the tape) which
are ultimately constrained by the Planck dimensions. The simplest such
M = (Q, Σ, Γ, δ , q0 , ⧠, F )
unit is a free fermion, which will be considered briefly here. For a free
where Q is the set of internal states, Σ is the input alphabet, Γ is the tape massless fermion, after preserving only the left moving (or holo-
alphabet, δ is the transition function, □ is the blank symbol, q0 is the morphic) half (since the CFT2 being considered is a chiral half), the
initial state, and F is the set of final states. This is the universally ac- action becomes
cepted definition of a Turing machine which may be found in ele- 1 −
mentary textbooks on theoretical computer science (such as [13]. The S=
8π
∫ ψ∂ψ.
sets of states may be defined on the boundary two dimensional con-
formal field theory in terms of the possible energy eigenvalues of the The field ψ satisfies the short distance singularity
involved particles (using the Schrodinger equation). The description of 1
ψ (z ) ψ (w ) = −
interacting fields in the resulting interactions on the CFT2 (an ab- z−w
breviation for a two dimensional conformal field theory) falls outside −
the scope of the paper, however we will consider the case of free bosons and the operator ∂ is related to the Feynman’s Dirac operator in the
and fermions which together compose the idealized states in Q, Σ, and following way.
Γ. In what follows the resource used is a set of lecture notes presented 0 ∂x − i∂y ⎞ ⎛ 0 ∂ ⎞
by Ginsparg [8]. D = σx ∂x + σy ∂y = ⎛⎜ ⎟ ⎜− ⎟

⎝ x∂ + i ∂ y 0 ⎠ ⎝∂ 0⎠

Set of internal states Q
The internal state of the black hole may be represented by the set of
quasi-primary fields of the CFT2 which may be used to generate the
secondary fields (consisting of the derivatives of all orders of the pri-
mary fields ϕi which are referred to as descendant fields). Thus we may
represent the set of internal states Q as the set of all possible config-
urations of the set of quasi-primary fields which represent their re-
spective conformal families.
Q = {(ϕ1, ⋯, ϕn )1, ⋯, (ϕ1, ⋯, ϕn )i}
Input alphabet Σ
For the input we consider a free (non-interacting) boson on a CFT2.
With Euclidean space and time coordinates σ1 and σ0 we compactify the
space coordinate by σ1 = σ1 + 2π which defines a cylinder. This defines
the geometry for the radial quantization procedure to take place as
described in [8]. The string theory normalization for the action is given
by
−
S= ∫ L = 21π ∫ ∂X ∂X
A more realistic field may be specified by considering the case of a
free massive Dirac fermion whose Euclidean action in d dimensions is
given by
− −
S [ψ , ψ] = ∫ ddxψ (γμ ∂μ + m) ψ
where the γμ∂μ term is the Dirac operator alternatively represented in
Feynman slash notation [6].
The energy eigenvalues of the free fermion form elements of the set
Γ as in Section 5.2.
Conclusion
We have shown that black holes combined with an external beam of
gamma-rays form a viable model of computation; the Turing com-
pleteness of its associated language arises intuitively from direct ana-
logues between the Turing machine and the physical device. Although
it is currently not feasible to test such a model of computation in the
real world, its unconventionality provides insights into new ways of
thinking about leveraging nature for computational purposes as well as
analyzing physical processes from a computational perspective (since
physical events themselves may be regarded as instances of transition
functions) and the absence of a classical computer behind the horizon

4
G.R. Andrews
renders the model more physically realistic due to the inevitable
crushing of any such computer by the tidal forces of the black hole.
Future work should look for extensions to the Turing completeness of
this model, i.e. the theoretical potential for hypercomputation as has
been examined for relativistic computation in Malament-Hogarth
spacetimes [7], as well as further details in the feasibility of methods for
observer-provided gamma-ray beams and measurement of the gamma-
rays emitted from the black hole. Additionally, the theoretical de-
scription of pair production gamma-ray interactions and Hawking ra-
diation in the context of the Kerr/CFT correspondence and string theory
should be formulated in future research and stronger information
bounds must be found to better define the limitations of this model of
computation.
Acknowledgements
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
[1] Bardeen JM, Carter B, Hawking SW. The four laws of black hole mechanics.
Commun Math Phys 1973;31(2):161–70.
[2] Bekenstein JD. Black holes and information theory. Contemp Phys
2003;45(1):31–43.
[3] Bengtsson I, Zyczkowski K. Geometry of quantum states: an introduction to
Results in Physics 13 (2019) 102188
quantum entanglement. Cambridge University Press; 2006.
[4] Bigatti D, Susskind L. TASI lectures on the holographic principle. Strings, Branes,
and Gravity. 2001. p. 883–933.
[5] Bousso R. The holographic principle. Rev Mod Phys 2002;74(3):825.
[6] Chandrasekharan S, Wiese U-J. An introduction to chiral symmetry on the lattice.
Prog Part Nucl Phys 2004;53(1):373–418.
[7] Etesi G, Németi I. Non-Turing computations via Malament-Hogarth space-times. Int
J Theor Phys 2002;41:341–70.
[8] Ginsparg P. Applied conformal field theory, 1988. arXiv preprint hep-th/9108028.
[9] Guica M, Hartman T, Song W, Strominger A. The kerr/cft correspondence. Phys Rev
D 2009;80(12):124008.
[10] Hawking SW. Particle creation by black holes. Commun Math Phys
1975;43(3):199–220.
[11] Hawking SW, Maldacena J, Strominger A. DeSitter entropy, quantum entanglement
and AdS/CFT. J High Energy Phys 2001;2001(05):001.
[12] Kneiske TM, Bretz T, Mannheim K, Hartmann DH. Implications of cosmological
gamma-ray absorption – II. Modification of gamma-ray spectra. A & A
2004;413(3):807–15.
[13] Linz P. An introduction to formal languages and automata. 5th ed. Jones & Bartlett
Learning; 2012.
[14] Parikh MK, Wilczek F. Hawking radiation as tunneling. Phys Rev Lett
2001;85(24):5042.
[15] Rittersdorf I. Gamma ray spectroscopy. Nucl Eng Radiol Sci 2007:18–20.
[16] Robinson DC. Uniqueness of the Kerr black hole. Phys Rev Lett 1975;34(14):905.
[17] Ryu S, Takayanagi T. Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/
CFT. Phys Rev Lett 2008;96(18):181602.
[18] Solodukhin SN. Entanglement entropy of black holes. Living Rev Relativ
2011;14(1):8.
[19] Susskind L, Uglum J. Black hole entropy in canonical quantum gravity and super-
string theory. Phys Rev D 1994;50(4):2700.
[20] Tipler RJ. Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity and the extended standard model as
a theory of everything; 2007. arXiv preprint arXiv:0704.3276.