5 ms·

So this new result is derived semiclassically, right? Which means it was derived using more or less the same assumptions Hawking used to derive Hawking radiatio

So this new result is derived semiclassically, right? Which means it was derived using more or less the same assumptions Hawking used to derive Hawking radiation. So couldn't the same objection be made about the claim that black holes evaporate at all? After all, we also have no empirical data about that, and likely won't have such data for a long long time.

Kranar 6y ago
Of course the criticism can also apply to Hawking radiation but it wouldn't be a particularly strong or even novel critique. Scientists already understand that an experimentally unverified prediction in theoretical physics could end up being wrong. If Hawking radiation does end up being wrong, however, it would most definitely result in some groundbreaking insights because Hawking radiation is itself built upon a set of assumptions that have a lot of experimental evidence. The multiple solutions to the black hole information loss problem all depend on a set of assumptions that do not have that same degree of experimental evidence and so the concern is that physicists will converge on the solution that they find most comforting, likely based on ideology or whatever is fashionable, rather than converge on the solution that has the most evidence. The article says that getting actual empirical data to determine which competing solution is correct is virtually impossible. So sure, Hawking radiation can be wrong and we have very little empirical data to support it, but it's not a theory that's competing with any other theories strictly on the basis of math equations derived from a set of assumptions. It's a theory that is almost uniquely derived from a pre-existing set of assumptions that do have a large body of empirical support whereas the solutions to the black hole information loss problem are not.
- c1ccccc1 6y ago
  > It's a theory that is almost uniquely derived from a pre-existing set of assumptions that do have a large body of empirical support. What additional assumptions (on top of the ones Hawking made) does the new calculation use that don't have a large body of empirical support?
  - Kranar 6y ago
    The most plausible solutions can be read on Wikipedia along with the assumptions they either make, or violate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox#Postulated_solutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox...
    - c1ccccc1 6y ago
      Thanks for the link. It seems that the gradual leakage solution was thought to require an additional assumption that violated semiclassical gravity, but this new result is consistent with semiclassical gravity. However, platz's reply to my original comment makes a good point about the new work using a gravitational path integral, so I think I'll take that as my answer for now.
platz 6y ago
this result does rely on a very questionable interpretation of a gravitational path integral

Kranar 6y ago

Of course the criticism can also apply to Hawking radiation but it wouldn't be a particularly strong or even novel critique. Scientists already understand that an experimentally unverified prediction in theoretical physics could end up being wrong. If Hawking radiation does end up being wrong, however, it would most definitely result in some groundbreaking insights because Hawking radiation is itself built upon a set of assumptions that have a lot of experimental evidence. The multiple solutions to the black hole information loss problem all depend on a set of assumptions that do not have that same degree of experimental evidence and so the concern is that physicists will converge on the solution that they find most comforting, likely based on ideology or whatever is fashionable, rather than converge on the solution that has the most evidence. The article says that getting actual empirical data to determine which competing solution is correct is virtually impossible. So sure, Hawking radiation can be wrong and we have very little empirical data to support it, but it's not a theory that's competing with any other theories strictly on the basis of math equations derived from a set of assumptions. It's a theory that is almost uniquely derived from a pre-existing set of assumptions that do have a large body of empirical support whereas the solutions to the black hole information loss problem are not.

c1ccccc1 6y ago
> It's a theory that is almost uniquely derived from a pre-existing set of assumptions that do have a large body of empirical support. What additional assumptions (on top of the ones Hawking made) does the new calculation use that don't have a large body of empirical support?
- Kranar 6y ago
  The most plausible solutions can be read on Wikipedia along with the assumptions they either make, or violate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox#Postulated_solutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox...
  - c1ccccc1 6y ago
    Thanks for the link. It seems that the gradual leakage solution was thought to require an additional assumption that violated semiclassical gravity, but this new result is consistent with semiclassical gravity. However, platz's reply to my original comment makes a good point about the new work using a gravitational path integral, so I think I'll take that as my answer for now.

platz 6y ago

this result does rely on a very questionable interpretation of a gravitational path integral