4 ms·
This seems to address it (from the article): "[Hawking] radiation is thermal which means it’s random except for its temperature, and the temperature is inverse
by mannykannot 5y ago
This seems to address it (from the article):
"[Hawking] radiation is thermal which means it’s random except for its temperature, and the temperature is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole. This means two things. First, there’s no new information which comes out in the Hawking radiation..."
Its mass is one of the few things we know from the outside.
- phendrenad2 5y agoHow do we know it's thermal? How do we know there aren't small fluctuations that are too small for us to detect millions of miles away?
- mannykannot 5y agoAFAIK Hawking radiation has never been detected. It is hypothesized on the basis of current theories of quantum mechanics and gravity, and those assumptions imply a thermal distribution of energy. So, we have a reason to think that Hawking radiation occurs and has this property, while no-one so far has proposed a mechanism that would encode data on it.
- tsimionescu 5y agoIt's important to understand that Hawking radiation is not something we've observed and have noticed seems random. Instead, Hawking radiation is a prediction of a mathematical model. In that model, Hakwing radiation is purely random. If I remember correctly, Hawking radiation is postulated to arise because of fluctuations in the vacuum giving rise to virtual particle pairs. Normally, these would annihiliate back almost instantly. But, when such an event happens near the event horizon, one of them may fall into the black hole, leaving the other one to "escape", and appear as if the event horizon is emitting radiation. Since this radiation is caused by random fluctuations in the void outside the event horizon, it can't be correlated with anything past the even horizon, so it can't carry information about that.
- GTP 5y agoProbably for OP this isn't enough: if the radiation was carrying encrypted information then it would look random without knowing the "key", whatever a "key" could be in the context of a physical system. But I think that talking about encryption here without a solid preparation in the filed of physics it is just trying to apply something we know to try to solve some problem we have no idea how to approach.
- andrewflnr 5y agoThermal radiation from a classical object looks "random" but still obeys (and in fact inspired) quantum theory. The information about the past of the object is there, it's just unfeasible to recover. I suspect Hawking radiation is the same way.
- lupire 5y agoWhy do you suspect that? Do you deny that quantum mechanics is a valid model of the universe? Or do you believe quantum mechanics is equivalent to relativistic mechanins? Either would unwrite a century of physics.
- andrewflnr 5y agoI'm proposing that quantum mechanics is right and GR is wrong, particularly as regards the no-hair theorem. I really can't tell how you jumped to the opposite proposals from my comment.