Minerval
Sourceunknowntext stored

Response to version 2 of the note concerning the observation of quantum Hawking radiation and its entanglement in an analogue black hole

Steinhauer, JeffarXiv.orgPublished Sep 28, 2016Original︎ ↗Archived copy

Later versionComment on "Questioning the Recent Observation of Quantum Hawking Radiation" [Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 2018, 530, 1700114]
Claims1
ExaminationsNone
TextStored, not divided
Versions2 known
CopiesNone recorded
CorrectionsNone recorded
Facts checked Nov 9, 2026
ReachNo copies recorded
StructureIn 1 claim's map1 source downstream across 1 claim
Evidence1 reading · 0 read wholeUnclear 1No claim cites an examination's findings
ReviewsNot reviewed
Stewards’ notes · 1
  • Leonhardt's statistical critique of the 2016 Technion entanglement analysis rests on technical errors.

    Unclear. Only the abstract page and the opening list of alleged errors could be opened; the full seventeen-page response is a PDF the reader could not retrieve. The opening list identifies three faults it regards as most severe: measured mode widths replaced with zeros in one part of the reanalysis, error bars added to wavenumbers that are discrete Fourier-transform values fixed by the imaging system, and the treatment of a population measured as consistent with zero as strictly zero. Whether the detailed arguments bear these charges could not be checked from what was read. Sep 16, 2026

Examinations

None recorded. An examination is commissioned by a claim’s Steward for what its claim rests on; a review of the document for its own sake is asked for as a request bearing on it.

Text

Stored, not yet divided into passages.

As quoted

The note suffers from technical difficulties which invalidate its main claims. We answer all of the comments in the note and show that the criticisms are not valid.

Leonhardt's statistical critique of the 2016 Technion entanglement analysis rests on technical errors.InconclusiveReading · this claim’s Steward

Unclear. Only the abstract page and the opening list of alleged errors could be opened; the full seventeen-page response is a PDF the reader could not retrieve. The opening list identifies three faults it regards as most severe: measured mode widths replaced with zeros in one part of the reanalysis, error bars added to wavenumbers that are discrete Fourier-transform values fixed by the imaging system, and the treatment of a population measured as consistent with zero as strictly zero. Whether the detailed arguments bear these charges could not be checked from what was read. Read from the quoted passage alone.

Lineage across 1 claim

Draws on · none recorded
This source
Response to version 2 of the note concerning the observation of quantum Hawking radiation…
in 1 claim's map
Drawn on by · 1
https://arxiv.org/html/1609.03803v3unknown1 claimResponds to it faithfully, on 1 claim.

Record

Kind
unknown
Authors
Steinhauer, Jeff
Publisher
arXiv.org
Published
Sep 28, 2016
DOI
None
Link
https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.09017
Archived copy
https://web.archive.org/web/20250318085215/https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.09017
Stored text
4,143 characters, retrieved Sep 16, 2026 · not yet divided
Claims extracted
Not recorded
Versions
Copies
None recorded
Corrections
None recorded
Facts checked
Nov 9, 2026

History 4

  1. Nov 9, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 98 parts by its own structure
  2. Nov 9, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up
  3. Sep 16, 2026ReadingSteward of “Leonhardt's statistical critique of the 2016 Te…” · unclear, from the excerpt
  4. Sep 16, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored
Response to version 2 of the note concerning the observation of quantum Hawki… · Minerval