- Hawking focused on something called the information paradox, which continues to puzzle scientists who study black holes. In a nutshell, the paradox involves the fact that information about the star that formed a black hole seems to be lost inside it, presumably disappearing when the black hole inevitably disappears. These things cannot be lost, according to the way we think the universe works, and physicists generally believe that they aren't really lost. But where does the information go when the black hole that's absorbed it goes kaput?
I have heard anecdotes that suggest that Hawking is not the most gracious of scientists, and that he has not shared credit when he should have. I wonder how t'Hooft feels about headlines like this one.Nobel laureate Gerard t'Hooft, who was present for the discussion, has been thinking about information loss in a similar way, and he cited several papers he has published on the subject. It will take more discussion — and much comparing of math equations — to establish what's new about Hawking's theories in relation to t'Hooft's, and whether Hawking has overcome some of the issues associated with earlier iterations of the idea.
Now, real quick - can anyone explain to me why do we believe that information has to be preserved? And why can't it be transformed?
I'm not sure I can be the one to explain it to you, but if you've got 90 minutes and a good pair of headphones (the volumes a bit low) here's a video of Leonard Susskind explaining very accessibly the gist of black holes and the information paradox; The lecture is from 2008 though so it isn't technically cutting edge, but I think you'd still find it pretty satisfying even with as much as an undergrad education in physics.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox Not that I know why that "commonly assumed tenet of science" is so commonly assumed... :/The black hole information paradox results from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It suggests that physical information could permanently disappear in a black hole, allowing many physical states to devolve into the same state. This is controversial because it violates a commonly assumed tenet of science—that in principle complete information about a physical system at one point in time should determine its state at any other time.
As soon as I have the time, I'm going on a hunt to know why that is. I'll report back.
Wait, didn't we already think this? I swear I read this idea before, so I had to double-check the date on this article. Seems odd to me that this is described as a new thing. Did I switch realities again?