<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1408.3203/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1408.3203/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime — mentioned by raattgift</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28286340</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1408.3203:28286340</guid><pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:34:52 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m glad you thought the article&amp;#x27;s explanation was &amp;quot;pretty clear&amp;quot;. For me it was less clear in part because it raised the question: &amp;quot;what is a quantum extremal surface?&amp;quot;, which doesn&amp;#x27;t really seem to be answered in the Quanta article. Perhaps I could persuade you to try your hand at your terse sort of summary for the interviewee&amp;#x27;s two-author paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3203 (Engelhardt &amp;amp; Wall, E&amp;amp;W2014) defining quantum extremal surfaces, and having done so return to and similarly summarize the part of the Quanta Magazine article where the interviewee is asked (several years later) about…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1408.3203/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>hep-th</category></item><item><title>Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime — mentioned by pdonis</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24947153</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1408.3203:24947153</guid><pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2020 21:42:54 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the link. I find it very frustrating when pop science magazines refuse to link to the actual paper. I don&amp;#x27;t want to read their attempt to put what the paper says into layman&amp;#x27;s language; their attempts are usually way off. I want to read the actual paper. Edit: I was finally able to find links to actual papers in the article: https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.02055 https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.08255 https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.08762 https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10996 https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.08950 https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.05863 These appear to be the papers giving the various calculations…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1408.3203/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>hep-th</category></item></channel></rss>
