I wish I could understand the minds of these people. They lived with us and yet they are so much ahead in the comprehension of the universe. I've always loved science, I chose to do computers in the end though. I don't understand a single world of the abstract.<p>I also wish I could just know what people in a thousand years learn about the universe. It seems like the knowledge we gain (science and technology) is exponential and just started a few years ago.<p>It also feels like this contribution is so cool, even more seeing that Hawking is sharing it with us things after dying somehow.
This was so difficult for me to understand because the author tried _so hard_ to make this sound poetic.<p>Here's what I got..<p>- For a long time we thought that any information (matter/light) that goes into a blackhole is lost forever and is "corrupted".<p>- Hawking believed this for a long time and said “God not only plays dice, but he often throws them where they can’t be seen." No one really knows _how_ the blackhole actually "corrupted" the information but had some nutty theories.<p>- 30 years later (in 2004) Hawking changed his mind and said that information can actually be retrieved from a blackhole.<p>- A dude named Andrew Strominger recently discovered that black holes have this "soft hair" property that can be "read" to theoretically "see" what is inside the blackhole.<p>- Hawkings last paper says that he thinks the information inside will be re-emitted when the black hole evaporates.<p>TL;DR: Hawking for a long time thought matter/information that went into a blackhole was lost forever - and then changed his mind about it.
If you want to dive in, I believe this is the right arxiv link <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.01847" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.01847</a>
Here's a link to the actual paper, if anyone's interested:<p><a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.01847.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.01847.pdf</a>
I get that Hawking's work is incredible and that he, himself, is an amazing person. But is his work really worth putting him on the same pedestal as Newton?