Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Quantum Science and Technology

Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology ·

Volume 4 - 2025 | https://doi.org/10.3389/frqst.2025.1656200

Black hole merger as an event converting two qubits into one

  • Szymon Łukaszyk*corresponding author
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

A black hole represents a quantum state that saturates three bounds of the quantum orthogonalization interval. It is a qubit in an equal superposition of its two energy eigenstates, with a vanishing ground state and a nonvanishing one equal to the black hole’s energy, where the product of the black hole’s entropy and temperature amounts to half of its energy. As two black holes frequently merge into one, it is natural to ask what happens with the qubits they carry. I consider a binary black hole as a quantum system of two independent qubits evolving independently under a common Hamiltonian to show that their merger can be considered in terms of two orthogonal projections of this Hamiltonian onto a two-dimensional Hilbert subspace, which correspond to the Bell states of this two-qubit system.

Keywords

1 Introduction

I have previously (Łukaszyk, 2023) shown that a black hole (BH) can be considered a patternless (Chaitin, 1966) bitstring of N BH fluctuating Planck triangles (FPT) carrying a binary potential δ φ k = − c 2 ⋅ { 0,1 }—where c is the speed of light in a vacuum—and having the Hamming weight of N 1 = ⌊ N BH / 2 ⌋ active Planck triangles, where “x” is the floor function yielding the greatest integer less than or equal to its argument x. Therefore, BHs are ergodic systems in thermodynamic equilibrium that define not only one unit of thermodynamic entropy (Bekenstein, 1973) (four FPTs) but also maximize Shannon entropy (Shannon, 1948). I have also previously (Łukaszyk, 2024) demonstrated that a BH can be modeled as a qubit in an equal superposition of its energy eigenstates, uniquely achieving three known bounds for the quantum orthogonalization interval (Mandelstam and Tamm, 1945; Margolus and Levitin, 1998; Levitin and Toffoli, 2009). A BH is thus a fundamental quantum system.

The consideration of qubits and BHs within a single conceptual framework is known from the state of the art (see, for example, Borsten et al., 2009; Lévay, 2010; Duff, 2013; Giddings and Shi, 2013; Verlinde and Verlinde, 2013; Prudêncio et al., 2015; Belhaj et al., 2016; Osuga and Page, 2018; Broda, 2021).

Interferometric data 1 on collisions of celestial objects (called “mergers”) indicate that the fraction of BH mergers is much higher than might be expected by chance (Gerosa and Fishbach, 2021; Abbott et al., 2021; Abbott et al., 2023b; Abbott et al., 2023a; Dall’Amico et al., 2024). While gravitational events are real, labeling them as waves may be misleading—normal modulation of the gravitational potential caused by merging objects should not be interpreted as a gravitational wave understood as a carrier of gravity (Szostek et al., 2019). Furthermore, based on the gravitational event GW170817, it was experimentally confirmed that mergers are perfectly spherical (Sneppen et al., 2023). This is also an expected result as no point of impact can be considered unique on a patternless, perfectly spherical BH surface. BHs may be different from their general relativistic counterparts outside Einstein’s relativity (Li et al., 2023).

In this study, I show that a merger of two BHs, as expected, converts a separable two-qubit BH state into a single-qubit BH state.

2 Black hole Hamiltonian

Consider a general 2 × 2 Hermitian Hamiltonian,expressed as a linear combination of the Pauli matrices σ k with ω k ∈ R, a coupling energy E / 2, and σ 0 being the identity matrix. The Hamiltonian (Equation 1) governs the evolution of any qubit (we omit the irrelevant global phase in this study):where the relative phase φ ∈ R, α 0 2 + α 1 2 = 1, and i 2 = − 1 by the Schrödinger equation H 2 × 2 | E 0 / 1 〉 = E 0 / 1 | E 0 / 1 〉 , where the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian (Equation 1) are ω 2 : = ω 1 2 + ω 2 2 + ω 3 2, andare their corresponding normalized eigenstates, which are commonly referred to as “stationary states” (Nielsen and Chuang, 2010). This is because, under the Hamiltonian’s (Equation 1) evolution, they only acquire an overall numerical factor, | E k 〉 → e − i E k δ t / ℏ | E k 〉, where ℏ is the reduced Planck constant. The expected value of the Hamiltonian (Equation 1) for the qubit (Equation 2) and its average energy isand the variance of the Hamiltonian (Equation 1) for the qubit (Equation 2) and its variance of energy iswhere the bra-ket terms 〈 ψ | H 2 × 2 | ψ 〉 and 〈 ψ | H 2 × 2 2 | ψ 〉 implicitly include the phase factor φ of the qubit (Equation 2).

H 2 × 2 = 1 2 E ∑ k = 0 3 ω k σ k = 1 2 E ω 0 + ω 3 ω 1 − i ω 2 ω 1 + i ω 2 ω 0 − ω 3 , (1)

ψ 〉 = α 0E 0 〉 + α 1 e i φE 1 〉 , (2)

E 0 / 1 = 1 2 E ω 0 ∓ ω , (3)

E 0 / 1 〉 = ω ∓ ω 3 2 ω ω ∓ ω 3 1 ∓ ω 1 + i ω 2 ω ∓ ω 3 , (4)

E avg = 〈 ψ | H 2 × 2 | ψ 〉 = ∑ k | α k | 2 E k = α 0 2 E 0 + α 1 2 E 1 , (5)

δ E 2 = 〈 ψ | H 2 × 2 2 | ψ 〉 − 〈 ψ | H 2 × 2 | ψ 〉 2 = 1 2 ∑ k , l | α k | 2 | α l | 2 E k − E l 2 = α 0 2 α 1 2 E 0 − E 1 2 , (6)

According to Levitin and Toffoli (2009), the minimum time needed for any quantum state to evolve into an orthogonal state, known as the “quantum orthogonalization interval” δ t ⊥, is achieved by a qubit (Equation 2) in an equal superposition ( α k 2 = 1 / 2 ) of its energy eigenstates (Equation 4) with the average energy equal to the standard deviation ( E avg = δ E ), and the eigenvalues (Equation 3) equal to E 0 = 0 and E 1 = ℏ π / δ t ⊥. In this case, the square of the expected value of the Hamiltonian (Equation 5) can be equated with its variance in Equation 6, yielding 〈 ψ | H 2 × 2 2 | ψ 〉 = 2 〈 ψ | H 2 × 2 | ψ 〉 2 .

Furthermore, E 0 = 0 implies the vanishing determinant of the Hamiltonian (Equation 1) | H 2 × 2 | = ω 0 2 − ω 3 2 − ω 1 2 + ω 2 2 = 0 , yielding ω 2 = ω 0 2 = ω 1 2 + ω 2 2 + ω 3 2. We note that the eigenstate | E 0 〉 (Equation 4) would be singular for ω 1 2 = ω 2 2 = 0 as in the case ω 2 = ω 0 2 = ω 3 2. Furthermore, ω 3 = ∓ ω 0 implies H 2 × 2 = E | 0 〉 〈 0 | and H 2 × 2 = E | 1 〉 〈 1 |. Therefore, to prevent these singularities, we set ω 3 = 0. Levitin and Toffoli (2009) also showed that E max 4 ≤ E avg ≤ E max 2, where E max is the maximum energy eigenvalue of any quantum system. In the case of a qubit in an equal superposition and vanishing eigenstate E 0, this implies E avg = E 1 2 = E max 2. However, such states are not considered functional qubits, at least in the context of quantum computing.

I previously found that a BH is the only quantum system having a vanishing ground-state energy, only two possible states, and average energy equal to its standard deviation and half of its total energy (Łukaszyk, 2023; 2024). Thus, a BH’s average energy is its entropic work, which is the scalar product of the BH (Hawking) temperature and (Bekenstein) entropywhere G is the gravitational constant, k B is the Boltzmann constant, ℓ P is the Planck length, T P is the Planck temperature, and M BH and R BH denote the BH mass and radius. Thus, δ E = E avg = E 1 / 2 = E BH / 2, whereis the BH energy, and δ t ⊥ BH represents the BH’s orthogonalization interval—the minimal period required for the BH qubit state to evolve into an orthogonal one, which is inversely proportional to the BH’s energy. For example, the orthogonalization interval of the BH Sagittarius A* (M BH ≈ 8.26 × 1 0 36 kg) is δ t ⊥ BH = ℏ π / M BH c 2 ≈ 4.4628 × 1 0 − 88 seconds, which is in the order of a squared Planck time (t P ≈ 5.3911 × 1 0 − 44 s), the smallest interval considered to have a physical significance in theories combining quantum mechanics and general relativity. The scalar product also evinces this tendency to orthogonality, where two nonorthogonal statestend as shown in the Equation 12 to orthogonality with the increasing size of the quantum system as shown in Equation 9. Even toy examples involving just two nonorthogonal states could shed some light on the foundations of quantum theory (Fuchs, 2002).

T BH ⋅ S BH = ℏ c 3 8 π G M BH k B ⋅ 1 4 k B 4 π R BH 2 ℓ P 2 = T P 2 π d BH ⋅ 1 4 k B N BH = 1 2 E BH , (7)

E BH = M BH c 2 = ℏ π δ t ⊥ BH (8)

lim m → ∞ ⟨ 0 1 0 2 … 0 m | + 1 + 2 ⋯ + m ⟩ = lim m → ∞ 1 2 m / 2 = 0 (9)

Expressing the BH energy E BH as the product of temperature and information capacity (or entropy, as in Equation 7) conceals the fact that both the quantities T BH = T P / 2 π d BH,and N BH = π d BH 2 can be stated as functions of the BH’s diameter D BH = d BH ℓ P, where d BH ∈ R. However, such notation reveals that the BH’s energy E BH = N BH ⋅ 1 2 k B T BH is a product of the number of FPTs on a BH’s surface and their energies, whereas these energies are given by the equipartition theorem for one degree of freedom (DOF). Hence, one DOF corresponds to one bit of information (Łukaszyk, 2024). The equipartition theorem was rigorously proven only for one DOF and under the assumption that the DOF energy depends quadratically on the generalized coordinate, which holds for a Planck area ℓ P 2 on the holographic BH surface and the associated quadratic binary potential δ φ k = − c 2 ⋅ { 0,1 }.

With E 1 = E BH from Equation 3, we conclude that ω 0 = 1, which bounds ω 1 2 + ω 2 2 = 1, and we define e i θ : = ω 1 + i ω 2. Correspondingly, the qubit general Hamiltonian (Equation 1) in the case of a BH becomes a continuum of complex Hamiltonians, parametrized by the BH energy and the unobservable phase θ The stationary eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (Equation 10) areand the BH qubit (Equation 2) can be expressed aswhere, in particular, | ψ BH 〉 = | 0 〉 for φ = 2 k π, and | ψ BH 〉 = − e i θ | 1 〉 for φ = ( 2 k + 1 ) π. Due to the predefined coupling energy E / 2 = E BH / 2, the Hamiltonian expected value (Equation 5) for the qubit (Equation 12) equals the BH entropic work (Equation 7) regardless of the relative phase φ. Furthermore, the Hamiltonian (Equation 10) has the scalar multiple idempotent property of , given by Equation 13 which cannot be further reduced to H BH = E BH I as it is non-invertible (but is, in fact, so reduced during a merger of two BHs described by the relation (Equation 24), as I propose in the subsequent section).

H BH = 1 2 E BH 1 e − i θ e i θ 1 = 1 4 k B T BH N BH σ 0 + ∑ k = 1 2 ω k σ k . (10)

∅ 〉 = 1 2 1 − e i θ ,E BH 〉 = 1 2 1 e i θ , (11)
ψ BH 〉 = 1 2∅ 〉 + e i φE BH 〉 , (12)

H BH 2 = 1 4 E BH 2 1 e − i θ e i θ 1 2 = 1 2 E BH 2 1 e − i θ e i θ 1 = E BH H BH , (13)

The unitary evolution operator of the Hamiltonian (Equation 10) iswhere η : = E BH δ t / ℏ. In particular, the operator (Equation 14) provides the following transformations (Equation 15):if invoked n times on the states (Equation 11) or the states | 0 〉, | 1 〉, | − 〉 : = ( | 0 〉 − | 1 〉 ) / 2, and | + 〉 : = ( | 0 〉 + | 1 〉 ) / 2.

U BH = e − H BH i δ t / ℏ = e − i η / 2 cos η 2 − i ⁡ sin η 2 e − i θ − i ⁡ sin η 2 e i θ cos η 2 , U BH δ t ⊥ = − 0 e − i θ e i θ 0 , (14)

U BH ⊗ n | ∅ 〉 = | ∅ 〉 ∀ η , ∀ n , U BH ⊗ n | E BH 〉 = e − i n η | E BH 〉 , U BH ⊗ n δ t ⊥ | E BH 〉 = − 1 n | E BH 〉 , U BH ⊗ n | 0 〉 = 1 2 e − i n η + 1 e i θ e − i n η − 1 , U BH ⊗ n δ t ⊥ | 0 〉 = | 0 〉 if n is even − e i θ | 1 〉 if n is odd . U BH ⊗ n | 1 〉 = 1 2 e − i θ e − i n η − 1 e − i n η + 1 , U BH ⊗ n δ t ⊥ | 1 〉 = − e i θ | 0 〉 if n is odd | 1 〉 if n is even . U BH ⊗ n | − 〉 = 1 2 e − i n η 2 cos n η 2 + i ⁡ sin n η 2 e − i θ − cos n η 2 − i ⁡ sin n η 2 e i θ , U BH ⊗ n | + 〉 = 1 2 e − i n η 2 cos n η 2 − i ⁡ sin n η 2 e − i θ cos n η 2 − i ⁡ sin n η 2 e i θ , (15)

3 Merging two qubits into one

If the Hamiltonian (Equation 10) governs the evolution of one BH, then the evolution of two BHs A and B is governed by the general Hamiltonian of a two-qubit systemwith H A and H B being the Hamiltonians (Equation 10) of the individual BHs having energies E A and E B, and H int being the vanishing Hamiltonian of their interaction, as they are independent. Each BH is associated with a unique orthogonalization interval δ t ⊥ A and δ t ⊥ B (Equation 8). The continuum hypothesis ensures a unique fractional part of a BH surface 0 < N BH − ⌊ N BH ⌋ < 1 (too small to carry a single bit of information), and hence the uniqueness of any conceivable BH, regardless of the simultaneous existence of the same number of bits ⌊ N BH ⌋ on many BHs (Łukaszyk, 2023).

H A B = H A ⊗ I + I ⊗ H B + H int = H A ⊗ I + I ⊗ H B = = 1 2 E A + E B E B e − i θ B E A e − i θ A 0 E B e i θ B E A + E B 0 E A e − i θ A E A e i θ A 0 E A + E B E B e − i θ B 0 E A e i θ A E B e i θ B E A + E B (16)

The Hamiltonian (Equation 16) has four eigenvalues (Equation 17)associated with four eigenstates given by (Equation 18)

E 0 = 0 , E 1 = E B , E 2 = E A , E 3 = E A + E B , (17)

∅ A ∅ B 〉∅ A E B 〉E A ∅ B 〉E A E B 〉 = = 1 2 1 1 1 1 − e i θ B e i θ B − e i θ B e i θ B − e i θ A − e i θ A e i θ A e i θ A e i θ A + θ B − e i θ A + θ B − e i θ A + θ B e i θ A + θ B ˙ (18)

Hence, the BHs A and B form a quantum system (we skip the BH subscript in this section) of two separable qubits (Equation 12)and the evolution operator U A B = exp − i H A B δ t / ℏ of the Hamiltonian (Equation 16) is the tensor product of the individual evolution operators (Equation 14), so their evolution is independent, preserving their separability. In particular, the state (Equation 19) has a form given by (Equation 20).

ψ A B 〉 =ψ A 〉 ⊗ψ B 〉 = 1 2∅ A ∅ B 〉 + e i φ B∅ A E B 〉 + e i φ AE A ∅ B 〉 + e i φ A + φ BE A E B 〉 , (19)
ψ A B 〉 =00 〉 for φ A = 2 k π ∩ φ B = 2 l π ,ψ A B 〉 = − e i θ B01 〉 for φ A = 2 k π ∩ φ B = 2 l + 1 π ,ψ A B 〉 = − e i θ A10 〉 for φ A = 2 k + 1 π ∩ φ B = 2 l π , andψ A B 〉 = e i θ A + θ B11 〉 for φ A = 2 k + 1 π ∩ φ B = 2 l + 1 π . (20)

The BH merger M must convert two separable BH qubits (Equation 19) into one BH qubit (Equation 12) ( | ψ A B 〉 → | ψ M 〉 ) and the 4 × 4 Hamiltonian (Equation 16) into a 2 × 2 Hamiltonian H M (Equation 10).

A merger cannot trace out one qubit from the two-qubit system (Equation 19), as partial trace applies to mixed states and time evolution, not directly to a Hamiltonian. Furthermore, partial trace models a measurement, so that it would be tantamount to asserting that BH A is “observing” BH B or vice versa. However, BHs are qubits, and qubits are not observers (Brukner, 2021; Pienaar, 2021). Having no interior, a BH cannot store any measurement information.

Therefore, the merger must reduce the dimension of the Hamiltonian from 4 × 4 to 2 × 2 by a projection of the Hamiltonian (Equation 16) onto a two-dimensional Hilbert subspace spanned by two orthonormal states in the computational basis to extract the submatrix of H A B corresponding to the relevant rows and columns.

Three distinct projections of the Hamiltonian H A B (Equation 16) exist. For the subspaces spanned by { | 00 〉 , | 01 〉 } and { | 10 〉 , | 11 〉 } for the subspaces spanned by { | 00 〉 , | 10 〉 } and { | 01 〉 , | 11 〉 } and for the subspaces spanned by { | 00 〉 , | 11 〉 } and { | 01 〉 , | 10 〉 }

H M = 1 2 E A + E B E B e − i θ B E B e i θ B E A + E B , (21)

H M = 1 2 E A + E B E A e − i θ A E A e i θ A E A + E B , (22)

H M = 1 2 E A + E B 0 0 E A + E B . (23)

We must reject the nonorthogonal projection (Equations 21, 22) as they allow the state transitions of one qubit while fixing the state of the other. For example, the projection (Equation 22) of the Hamiltonian (Equation 16) onto a two-dimensional Hilbert subspace spanned by | 00 〉 and | 10 〉 allows for the first BH A state transitions ( | + 〉 ), while the second BH B is fixed ( | 0 〉 ). This inconsistency is shown in the off-diagonal term E A e ∓ i θ A that does not correspond to the coupling energy ( E A + E B ) / 2 for θ A = 0.

On the other hand, the orthogonal projection (Equation 23) seems not to preserve the form of the BH Hamiltonian (Equation 10). However, we must not forget that we are crossing the singularity here: we merge two independently evolving, quantum systems A and B into a new quantum system M. Therefore, we should interpret a projection (Equation 23) as the real part of the BH Hamiltonian (Equation 10), that is asfor θ M : = θ A ± θ B = π / 2 + k π. It is the phase θ M that will modulate the evolution of the new system after the merger.

H M = 1 2 E A + E B 1 0 0 1 = Re 1 2 E A + E B 1 e − i θ A ± θ B e i θ A ± θ B 1 → → 1 2 E A + E B 1 e − i θ M e i θ M 1 (24)

Furthermore, the evolution operator of the Hamiltonian (Equation 16) is the anti-diagonal matrix for E A t ⊥ A = E B t ⊥ B = ℏ π. However, only the orthogonal { | 00 〉 , | 11 〉 } , { | 01 〉 , | 10 〉 } projections of this matrix are unitary (respectively for θ M = θ A ± θ B) ∀ θ A , θ B ∈ R.

4 Conclusion

The qubit (Equation 12) in equal superposition of two energy eigenstates, attaining the bounds for the quantum orthogonalization interval (Mandelstam and Tamm, 1945; Margolus and Levitin, 1998; Levitin and Toffoli, 2009), introduces the Hamiltonian (Equation 10) that completely describes BH dynamics (Nielsen and Chuang, 2010) and is parametrized by one observable parameter (e.g., the BH energy) and the unobservable, relative phase of the qubit.

Considering a binary BH as a quantum system of two independent qubits (Equation 20) evolving independently under a common Hamiltonian (Equation 16), I have shown that their merger can be considered in terms of the orthogonal projection of this Hamiltonian onto a two-dimensional Hilbert subspace spanned by { | 00 〉 , | 11 〉 } and/or { | 01 〉 , | 10 〉 } states that correspond to the Bell states of this two qubit system (Equation 19).

The relation (Equation 24) shows that BH qubits must be orthogonal to merge. Otherwise, the merger would violate the no-deleting (Kumar Pati and Braunstein, 2000) and no-hiding (Braunstein and Pati, 2007) theorems. On the other hand, the orthogonalization interval (Equation 8) is inversely proportional to the BH’s energy. This may explain why mergers of massive BHs are the most frequently registered gravitational events.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Available online at the Gravitational Wave Open Science Center (GWOSC) portal https://www.gw-openscience.org/eventapi/html/allevents.

Statements

Conflict of interest

Author SŁ was the sole owner of Łukaszyk Patent Attorneys during the conduct of this study.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

SŁ: Writing – review and editing, Writing – original draft.

Acknowledgements

I thank my partners Wawrzyniec Bieniawski and Piotr Masierak for critical discussion and feedback.

References

  1. Abbott R., Abbott T. D., Abraham S., Acernese F., Ackley K., Adams A. (2021). Population properties of compact objects from the second LIGO–virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog. Astrophysical J. Lett. 913, L7. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe949
  2. Abbott R., Abbott T., Acernese F., Ackley K., Adams C., Adhikari N. (2023a). GWTC-3: compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and virgo during the second part of the third observing run. Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039
  3. Abbott R., Abbott T., Acernese F., Ackley K., Adams C., Adhikari N. (2023b). Population of merging compact binaries inferred using gravitational waves through GWTC-3. Phys. Rev. X 13, 011048. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048
  4. Bekenstein J. D. (1973). Black holes and entropy. Phys. Rev. D. 7, 2333 – 2346. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333
  5. Belhaj A., Benslimane Z., Sedra M. B., Segui A. (2016). Qubits from black holes in M-theory on K3 surface. Int. J. Geometric Methods Mod. Phys. 13, 1650075. doi:10.1142/S0219887816500754
  6. Borsten L., Dahanayake D., Duff M., Ebrahim H., Rubens W. (2009). Black holes, qubits and octonions. Phys. Rep. 471, 113 – 219. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2008.11.002
  7. Braunstein S. L., Pati A. K. (2007). Quantum information cannot be completely hidden in correlations: implications for the black-hole information paradox. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 080502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.080502
  8. Broda B. (2021). Causal unitary qubit model of black hole evaporation. Phys. Lett. B 820, 136564. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136564
  9. Brukner Č. (2021). Qubits are not observers – a no-go theorem. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2107.03513
  10. Chaitin G. J. (1966). On the length of programs for computing finite binary sequences. J. ACM 13, 547 – 569. doi:10.1145/321356.321363
  11. Dall’Amico M., Mapelli M., Torniamenti S., Arca Sedda M. (2024). Eccentric black hole mergers via three-body interactions in young, globular, and nuclear star clusters. Astron. Astrophys. 683, A186. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348745
  12. Duff M. J. (2013). “ Black holes and qubits,” in What is known and unexpected at LHC (Erice-Sicily, Italy: World Scientific), 57 – 66. doi:10.1142/9789814522489_0003
  13. Fuchs C. A. (2002). Just two nonorthogonal quantum states. Boston, MA: Springer US, 11 – 16. doi:10.1007/0-306-47097-7_2
  14. Gerosa D., Fishbach M. (2021). Hierarchical mergers of stellar-mass black holes and their gravitational-wave signatures. Nat. Astron. 5, 749 – 760. doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01398-w
  15. Giddings S. B., Shi Y. (2013). Quantum information transfer and models for black hole mechanics. Phys. Rev. D. 87, 064031. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.064031
  16. Kumar Pati A., Braunstein S. L. (2000). Impossibility of deleting an unknown quantum state. Nature 404, 164 – 165. doi:10.1038/404130b0
  17. Lévay P. (2010). STU black holes as four-qubit systems. Phys. Rev. D. 82, 026003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.026003
  18. Levitin L. B., Toffoli T. (2009). Fundamental limit on the rate of quantum dynamics: the unified bound is tight. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 160502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502
  19. Li D., Wagle P., Chen Y., Yunes N. (2023). Perturbations of spinning black holes beyond general relativity: modified teukolsky equation. Phys. Rev. X 13, 021029. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.13.021029
  20. Łukaszyk S. (2023). Black hole horizons as patternless binary messages and markers of dimensionality. New York, United States: Nova Science Publishers, 317 – 374. doi:10.52305/RLIT5885
  21. Łukaszyk S. (2024). Life as the explanation of the measurement problem. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2701, 012124. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2701/1/012124
  22. Mandelstam L., Tamm I. (1945). The uncertainty relation between energy and time in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. J. Phys. (USSR) 9, 249 – 254. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-74626-0_8
  23. Margolus N., Levitin L. B. (1998). The maximum speed of dynamical evolution. Phys. D. Nonlinear Phenom. 120, 188 – 195. doi:10.1016/S0167-2789(98)00054-2
  24. Nielsen M. A., Chuang I. L. (2010). Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Osuga K., Page D. N. (2018). Qubit transport model for unitary black hole evaporation without firewalls. Phys. Rev. D. 97, 066023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.066023
  26. Pienaar J. (2021). A quintet of quandaries: five No-go theorems for relational quantum mechanics. Found. Phys. 51, 97. doi:10.1007/s10701-021-00500-6
  27. Prudêncio T., Cirilo-Lombardo D. J., Silva E. O., Belich H. (2015). Black hole qubit correspondence from quantum circuits. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 30, 1550104. doi:10.1142/S0217732315501047
  28. Shannon C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27, 379 – 423. doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
  29. Sneppen A., Watson D., Bauswein A., Just O., Kotak R., Nakar E. (2023). Spherical symmetry in the kilonova AT2017gfo/GW170817. Nature 614, 436 – 439. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05616-x
  30. Szostek R., Góralski P., Szostek K. (2019). Gravitational waves in Newton’s gravitation and criticism of gravitational waves resulting from the General Theory of Relativity (LIGO). Bull. Karaganda Univ. “Physics” Ser. 96, 39 – 56. doi:10.31489/2019Ph4/39-56
  31. Verlinde E., Verlinde H. (2013). Black hole information as topological qubits. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1306.0516

Citation

Łukaszyk, S. (2025). Black hole merger as an event converting two qubits into one. Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology, Volume 4. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
4 - 2025

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Łukaszyk.

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Szymon Łukaszyk

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

Original ResearchEmergent problem-graph alignment in RL-discovered entanglement topologies for QAOATobias Rohe, Federico Harjes Ruiloba, Markus Baumann, Gerhard Stenzel, Leo Sünkel, Thomas Gabor, Claudia Linnhoff-PopienOriginal ResearchRound-the-clock QKD over a free-space-fiber channel with passive polarization-basis compensationSaumya Ranjan Behera, Melvee George, Urbasi SinhaPerspectiveThe cost of waiting: a decision-theoretic synthesis of early versus late post-quantum migration under uncertaintySimon Baradziej