13 ms·
Hawking radiation itself is not observed, but she seems willing to take that for granted on the basis of pure math. I don't see a notable difference between tha
by andrewflnr 6y ago
Hawking radiation itself is not observed, but she seems willing to take that for granted on the basis of pure math. I don't see a notable difference between that and the theoretical work she's dismissing here.
- DangitBobby 6y agoI don't think so. She states clearly that the paradox simply means some of the underlying assumptions must be wrong. She does not claim to know which ones it must be.
- abdullahkhalids 6y agoYes, one resolution of the paradox is that there is no Hawking radiation, which is what the author almost said > Another option is that the black holes do not entirely evaporate and the information is kept in what’s left, usually called a black hole remnant.