> As it stands, as far as we know, Hawking radiation is completely thermal and random Is it? Can you cite? IANAP but the best I could find on the matter is:

> As it stands, as far as we know, Hawking radiation is completely thermal and random Is it? Can you cite? IANAP but the best I could find on the matter is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox > There are various ideas about how the paradox is solved. Since the 1997 proposal of the AdS/CFT correspondence, the predominant belief among physicists is that information is preserved and that Hawking radiation is not precisely thermal but receives quantum corrections. Maybe that is wrong, but not sure what the basis for the claim to the contrary is. Another citation which speaks to the views of Hawking on the matter: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/203#nj185922bib67a https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/203... > Now if information is really lost down a black hole as Hawking originally proposed [64], and if the Hawking radiation really has negligible correlations between what is emitted early and late, then it might be true that A/4 −tr(ρ ln ρ), suitably regularized, would never decrease. But since this information-loss proposal has been controversial since near the beginning [65, 66], and since now even Hawking has given it up [67]; Direct quote from Hawking: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6193-hawking-concedes-black-hole-bet/#ixzz5xjLC8rNa https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6193-hawking-concedes... > “If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our Universe, but in a mangled form, which contains information about what you were like, but in an unrecognisable state.”