Skip to content
Back to the question

Evidence record

Where does information go in a black hole?

Every sentence on the exploration belongs to at least one claim below. Each says what kind of statement it is, what it rests on, what the evidence does not establish, and how far it was checked. Nothing here is a score, and none of it is a verdict on a belief or a theory.

Last checked 24 September 2026.

  • A judgement, not a fact: 6
  • Source checked: 35
  • Partly checked: 8
  • Presented as open: 2

If something here is wrong, misquoted, out of date or unfair, write to support@unknownoceans.com and give the claim number, which does not change.

What the question takes for granted

A question in theoretical physics with no observation behind it yet: two well-tested frameworks, applied together to an evaporating black hole, give incompatible answers, and the work since 2019 computes what the answer must look like without agreeing on how it comes about.

  • Black holes radiate and, left alone, evaporate

    Established

    Established as a calculation: quantum fields on the curved spacetime of a black hole. The page presents it as Hawking’s calculation, which is what it is.

  • Quantum evolution is reversible for black holes as for everything else

    Contested

    This is the rule Hawking gave up in 1976 and most later work keeps. The review of the recent calculations calls it the central dogma and says the paradox is one only if it holds.

  • There is a physical account of how the information gets out, still to be found

    Open

    The calculations since 2019 give the entropy of the radiation, not its state, and their interpretation is disputed. The page files the mechanism as unknown.

How the question is labelled

Claim: The information that cannot be destroyed

Kind
Disputed. A contested point, where the page reports a side or the disagreement.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The title states the quantum-mechanical side of the argument, which the body presents as one side.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 1

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: Results from the ’90s using string theory, a theory of quantum gravity, provided some precise ways to study this problem for very specific gravity theories. These results strongly suggest that information does indeed come out.

  • Cuts against

    Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapseabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: Because part of the information about the state of the system is lost down the hole, the final situation is represented by a density matrix rather than a pure quantum state.

Other readings

Hawking argued in 1976 that the information is destroyed; the page reports this in its first section.

Claim 1 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Falling in

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

The question

Claim: Quantum mechanics says information is never lost.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Said of the fine-grained entropy: under reversible (unitary) evolution a pure state stays pure, so nothing about it is forgotten.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 4

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Review of the field

    The source reads: It quantifies our ignorance about the precise quantum state of the system. It vanishes for a pure state, indicating complete knowledge of the quantum state. An important property is that it is invariant under unitary time evolution

What this does not establish

"In principle": the information can be scrambled beyond any practical recovery and still count as kept.

Later work looked for

How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.

Claim 3 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Hawking calculated that black holes evaporate.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Black hole explosions?opening paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: As a black hole emits this thermal radiation one would expect it to lose mass. This in turn would increase the surface gravity and so increase the rate of emission. The black hole would therefore have a finite life

What this does not establish

A calculation, and the page now says so.

Later work looked for

The calculation is what it was; see claim 1 for the argument over what follows.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Hawking showed black holes evaporate.” Evaporation is the result of Hawking’s calculation, which the 1974 letter itself states with "it seems" and "one would expect". "Showed" read as an established observation.

Claim 4 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Both cannot be right as stated

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from claims 3 and 4 as the page states them: a pure state that ends as purely thermal radiation has lost information.

Claim 5 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and the argument is fifty years old.

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

What this does not establish

Dated from Hawking’s 1976 paper; its abstract was read, not the paper.

Claim 6 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: By Hawking’s calculation, a black hole radiates and eventually disappears.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Black hole explosions?opening paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: The black hole would therefore have a finite life of the order of 1071 (M/M)−3 s. For a black hole of solar mass this is much longer than the age of the Universe.

What this does not establish

For a black hole of the Sun’s mass the letter puts the lifetime far beyond the age of the universe.

Later work looked for

A calculation; not a finding later work revises.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “A black hole radiates and eventually disappears.” Stated as fact; it is the result of a calculation.

Claim 7 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: If the radiation carries no trace of what fell in, quantum mechanics is violated.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 1

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: He argued that a black hole would destroy quantum information, and that the von Neumann entropy of the universe would increase by the process of black hole formation and evaporation.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 4

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: An important property is that it is invariant under unitary time evolution

What this does not establish

The review places the conflict at the Page time, while the hole is still large, not only in the last stage where the calculation cannot be trusted.

Later work looked for

How the argument runs; not a finding later work revises.

Claim 8 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: If it does, there is no agreed account of how.

Kind
Open question. Something the page says is not known.
Review
Presented as open. The page says this is unresolved, and the review found that it is.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 11.2

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: Therefore the current discussion leaves an important problem unresolved.

  • Qualifies

    Lessons from the information paradoxabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Review of the field

    The source reads: We show that accounting for this redundancy provides a resolution of the information paradox for evaporating black holes

    One author holds that a resolution exists; it is not the account the island calculations give.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “If it does, nobody has shown how.” Several accounts claim to show how (Raju’s is one); what is missing is agreement, and a complete account of the radiation’s state.

Claim 9 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Recent calculations suggest the information comes out, by a route that is not yet understood.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: This technique reveals large corrections needed for the entropy to be consistent with unitary black hole evaporation.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 11.2

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: we have discussed how to compute the entropy of Hawking radiation, but not how to compute its precise quantum state

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2022 on, "black hole information paradox island Page curve": further models and textbook chapters, nothing that supplies the state or settles the interpretation.

Claim 10 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Drop an encyclopedia into a black hole.

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Quantum mechanics says the information is still there in principle, scrambled beyond any practical recovery but never destroyed.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 4

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: An important property is that it is invariant under unitary time evolution

  • Supports

    Information in black hole radiationdiscussion of Fig. 1

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: The total information is instead mostly encoded in the correlations between all the parts.

What this does not establish

"Beyond any practical recovery" is the page’s gloss on information spread through correlations across the whole of the radiation.

Later work looked for

How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.

Claim 12 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Then the black hole evaporates, and what is left is thermal radiation that appears to depend only on its mass, charge and spin.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapseabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: a "hidden surface" about which the observer has only limited information such as the mass, angular momentum, and charge. Concerning this hidden surface one has a "principle of ignorance": The surface emits with equal probability all configurations of particles compatible with the observers limited knowledge.

What this does not establish

Hawking’s abstract was read, not the paper.

Later work looked for

A calculation; not a finding later work revises.

Claim 13 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

The paradox

Claim: The paradox

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

The problem, as posed in 1976

Claim: The problem, as posed in 1976

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapserecord and abstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: This means there is no S matrix for the process of black-hole formation and evaporation.

    Notation restored: LaTeX markup removed; checked against the APS abstract as carried by the INSPIRE-HEP record, which renders it as plain letters, read 2026-09-24. The text as extracted reads: This means there is no $S$ matrix for the process of black-hole formation and evaporation.

What this does not establish

The abstract was read, not the paper.

Claim 15 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Hawking calculated that a black hole radiates with a thermal spectrum set by its mass

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

For an uncharged, non-rotating hole the Hawking temperature depends only on the mass (inversely).

  • Supports

    Black hole explosions?opening paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: it seems that any black hole will create and emit particles such as neutrinos or photons at just the rate that one would expect if the black hole was a body with a temperature of (κ/2π) (ħ/2k) ≈ 10−6 (M/M)K

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 2.2, eq. 2.14

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: This is the Hawking temperature. It is the temperature measured by an observer that is more than a few Schwarzschild radii away from the black hole.

What this does not establish

A calculation for quantum fields around a black hole; the letter itself says "it seems".

Later work looked for

A calculation; not a finding later work revises.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Hawking showed that a black hole radiates with a thermal spectrum set by its mass” A calculated result, not an observation.

Claim 16 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and argued that when it has fully evaporated the information about what formed it is gone.

Kind
An argument. An argument a named thinker makes. That it is made is checked; whether it succeeds is argued.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapseabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Argument

    The source reads: Because part of the information about the state of the system is lost down the hole, the final situation is represented by a density matrix rather than a pure quantum state.

What this does not establish

Hawking’s abstract was read, not the paper.

Claim 17 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That breaks a basic rule: quantum evolution is reversible, and a pure state cannot become a mixed one.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 4

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: It vanishes for a pure state, indicating complete knowledge of the quantum state. An important property is that it is invariant under unitary time evolution

Other readings

Hawking proposed in 1976 that gravity breaks this rule (claim 19).

Later work looked for

How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.

Claim 18 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Hawking’s paper said so explicitly, and proposed that the rule fails for gravity.

Kind
An argument. An argument a named thinker makes. That it is made is checked; whether it succeeds is argued.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapseabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Argument

    The source reads: This means there is no S matrix for the process of black-hole formation and evaporation. Instead one has to introduce a new operator, called the superscattering operator, which maps density matrices describing the initial situation to density matrices describing the final situation.

    Notation restored: LaTeX markup removed; checked against the APS abstract as carried by the INSPIRE-HEP record, which renders it as plain letters, read 2026-09-24. The text as extracted reads: This means there is no $S$ matrix for the process of black-hole formation and evaporation. Instead one has to introduce a new operator, called the superscattering operator, which maps density matrices describing the initial situation to density matrices describing the final situation.

What this does not establish

Hawking’s abstract was read, not the paper.

Claim 19 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The objection came quickly, and Page set it out in 1980: if formation and evaporation can be described by an operator that respects CPT, then they can be described by one that takes pure states to pure states, and black holes are “in principle no more unpredictable than other quantum phenomena”.

Kind
An argument. An argument a named thinker makes. That it is made is checked; whether it succeeds is argued.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    Is Black-Hole Evaporation Predictable?abstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Argument

    The source reads: If black-hole formation and evaporation can be described by a superscattering operator which is CPT invariant, then it can be described by an S matrix which maps pure initial states into pure final states. Thus black holes may be in principle no more unpredictable than other quantum phenomena.

    Notation restored: LaTeX markup removed; checked against the APS abstract as carried by the INSPIRE-HEP record, which renders it as plain letters, read 2026-09-24. The text as extracted reads: If black-hole formation and evaporation can be described by a superscattering operator which is $\mathrm{CPT}$ invariant, then it can be described by an $S$ matrix which maps pure initial states into pure final states. Thus black holes may be in principle no more unpredictable than other quantum phenomena.

  • Supports

    Information in black hole radiationintroduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Argument

    The source reads: It was soon objected [3, 4] that this conclusion is not justified by the classical or semiclassical approximation for the black hole used to derive it, and that, in its original form at least, it violates a strong form of CPT invariance

    Reference 4 is Page’s 1980 letter.

What this does not establish

Page wrote that black holes "may be" no more unpredictable; the page’s quotation starts after "may be". The 1980 letter was read as its abstract.

Claim 20 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It is a paradox only on one assumption, that a black hole seen from outside is an ordinary quantum system evolving reversibly.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 5

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: The Hawking information paradox is an argument against the “central dogma” enunciated above [58]. It is only a paradox if we think that the central dogma is true.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationappendix B, glossary

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: Central dogma: A black hole – as viewed from the outside – is simply a quantum system with a number of degrees of freedom ... Being a quantum system, it evolves unitarily under time evolution.

Later work looked for

How the argument is framed; not a finding later work revises.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Most physicists were unwilling to give up the rule, which is what made this a paradox rather than a result.” No cited source counts physicists. The review of the recent work states the point the sentence was making as a condition, and the page now does too.

Claim 21 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Without that assumption, Hawking’s loss could be a feature of quantum gravity.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 5

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: Otherwise, perhaps it can be viewed as a feature of quantum gravity.

Later work looked for

How the argument is framed; not a finding later work revises.

Claim 22 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

When the information would have to appear

Claim: When the information would have to appear

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: In 1993 Don Page showed how the entanglement between the radiation and the remaining hole should behave if information does come out.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Information in black hole radiationtext before eq. 6

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: We would like to know how much information I_{r} to expect in the radiation at various stages of the black hole evaporation. Without a full quantum analysis, we cannot really answer this question definitely. However, a reasonable first guess

What this does not establish

Page called his random-state assumption "a reasonable first guess", made "in the spirit of the hypothesis that no information is lost".

Later work looked for

The curve is still the target every later calculation aims at (claims 40 to 45).

Claim 24 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Treat the two as a random pure state, and the smaller subsystem carries less than half a unit of information on average, so the entanglement entropy rises while the hole is the larger system, then turns around and falls once the radiation carries as much entropy as the hole that is left.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Average entropy of a subsystemabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: Thus there is less than one-half unit of information, on average, in the smaller subsystem of a total system in a random pure state.

  • Supports

    Information in black hole radiationdiscussion of Fig. 1

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: when the radiation that has been emitted from a black hole has a smaller Hilbert-space dimension than that of the hole that remains, the radiation would typically have very little information in it.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 5, figure 7

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: This changes relative to the Hawking answer at the Page time, ... when the entropy of Hawking radiation is equal to the thermodynamic entropy of the black hole.

What this does not establish

A result about random states, applied to a black hole by assumption.

Later work looked for

A calculation; not a finding later work revises.

Claim 25 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That turning point, since named the Page time, converts a vague question into a quantitative one.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 5

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: is called the Page time.

  • Supports

    Replica wormholes and the black hole interiorsection 1

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Argument

    The source reads: A quantitative form of this puzzle is encapsulated in the Page curve [2], a plot of the entanglement entropy of the radiation as a function of time.

Later work looked for

A naming and a framing; not a finding later work revises.

Claim 26 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Any account in which the information comes out has to reproduce it.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The Page curve of Hawking radiation from semiclassical geometrysection 1

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: In particular, unitarity implies that the von Neumann entropy of the Hawking radiation should initially rise but then fall back down, following the so called “Page curve”

  • Qualifies

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 5, figure 7

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: The precise shape of the lines depends on the black hole and the details of the matter fields being radiated.

What this does not establish

What has to be reproduced is the rise and the fall; the precise shape depends on the hole and on what it radiates.

Later work looked for

How the argument runs; not a finding later work revises.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Any proposed resolution has to reproduce the curve.” The curve follows from unitarity, so it binds only the resolutions that keep it. Hawking’s own answer, that the information is lost, does not reproduce it.

Claim 27 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The shape of the argument

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: 1974

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Black hole explosions?record: Nature 248, 30 (1 March 1974)

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026

Claim 29 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Hawking calculates that black holes radiate, at a temperature set by their mass.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

The temperature falls as the mass rises.

  • Supports

    Black hole explosions?opening paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: at just the rate that one would expect if the black hole was a body with a temperature of (κ/2π) (ħ/2k) ≈ 10−6 (M/M)K

What this does not establish

A calculation; the letter states it with "it seems".

Later work looked for

A calculation; not a finding later work revises.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Black holes radiate, at a temperature set by their mass.” Stated as fact; it is the result of a calculation.

Claim 30 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The radiation looks thermal.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Black hole explosions?opening paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: As a black hole emits this thermal radiation one would expect it to lose mass.

What this does not establish

Thermal as calculated. Whether it is exactly thermal is the question the page is about.

Later work looked for

A calculation; not a finding later work revises.

Claim 31 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: 1976

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

What this does not establish

The date is the record’s; the paper was read as its abstract.

Claim 32 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Hawking argues the information is destroyed, and that quantum mechanics must give way.

Kind
An argument. An argument a named thinker makes. That it is made is checked; whether it succeeds is argued.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapseabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Argument

    The source reads: This means there is no S matrix for the process of black-hole formation and evaporation.

    Notation restored: LaTeX markup removed; checked against the APS abstract as carried by the INSPIRE-HEP record, which renders it as plain letters, read 2026-09-24. The text as extracted reads: This means there is no $S$ matrix for the process of black-hole formation and evaporation.

What this does not establish

Hawking’s abstract was read, not the paper.

Claim 33 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: 1993

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Information in black hole radiationtitle page

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: (1993 June 17; revised Aug. 24)

Claim 34 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Page shows what the entanglement curve must look like if information escapes, which makes the question quantitative.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Information in black hole radiationFig. 1 caption

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: Average von Neumann or entanglement entropy

  • Supports

    Replica wormholes and the black hole interiorsection 1

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Argument

    The source reads: A quantitative form of this puzzle is encapsulated in the Page curve

What this does not establish

As in claim 25: a random-state model applied to a black hole.

Later work looked for

A calculation; not a finding later work revises.

Claim 35 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: 2019 onward

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationreferences 3 and 4

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: [arXiv:1905.08255 [hep-th]].

Claim 36 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Calculations in model spacetimes reproduce the Page curve, using contributions that were not previously included.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Replica wormholes and the entropy of Hawking radiationabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: we show that the large discrepancy between the von Neumann entropy as calculated by Hawking and the requirements of unitarity is fixed by including new saddles in the gravitational path integral.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: This technique reveals large corrections needed for the entropy to be consistent with unitary black hole evaporation.

What this does not establish

Calculations in simplified models, not in an ordinary evaporating black hole.

Other readings

Whether the models carry over to ordinary black holes is disputed (claims 48 to 50).

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2022 on, "replica wormholes": the method has been extended to further models; the dispute over what it means continues.

Claim 37 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What has been calculated

Claim: What has been calculated

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

The recent calculations

Claim: The recent calculations

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Since 2019 several groups have computed, in simplified models of gravity, entropies that follow the Page curve.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 11.1

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: Using this formula, we computed the entropy for an evaporating black hole and found that it follows the Page curve. ... it gives a result that follows the Page curve, too.

  • Supports

    Replica wormholes and the black hole interiorabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: Recent work has shown how to obtain the Page curve of an evaporating black hole from holographic computations of entanglement entropy. ... In a simple model, we study the Page transition in detail

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2022 on, "black hole information paradox island Page curve": more models, no reversal.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Since 2019 several groups have computed the entropy of Hawking radiation in simplified models of gravity and obtained the Page curve.” The first two papers computed the black hole’s entropy, not the radiation’s; the review keeps the two apart.

Claim 40 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Penington, and separately Almheiri, Engelhardt, Marolf and Maxfield, did it in May 2019, for the black hole rather than the radiation.

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Entanglement wedge reconstruction and the information paradoxabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: there is a phase transition in the location of the quantum Ryu-Takayanagi surface, at precisely the Page time. ... We can immediately derive the Page curve

  • Supports

    Entanglement wedge reconstruction and the information paradoxsection 1, summary of results

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: The microscopic entanglement entropy of the black hole obeys the so-called Page curve

  • Supports

    Entanglement wedge reconstruction and the information paradoxarXiv submission history, 1905.08255

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: [v1] Mon, 20 May 2019

    First posted to the arXiv on 20 May 2019.

  • Supports

    The entropy of bulk quantum fields and the entanglement wedge of an evaporating black holearXiv submission history, 1905.08762

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: [v1] Tue, 21 May 2019

    First posted to the arXiv on 21 May 2019.

  • Supports

    The entropy of bulk quantum fields and the entanglement wedge of an evaporating black holesection 5

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: With these two families of quantum extremal surfaces, the generalized entropy perfectly reproduces the Page curve, indicative of unitary evaporation.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 6

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: This does not directly address the information paradox since that concerns the entropy growth of the Hawking radiation.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 1, citing references 3 (Penington) and 4 (Almheiri, Engelhardt, Marolf and Maxfield)

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: More recently, this formula was applied to the black hole information problem, giving a new way to compute the entropy of Hawking radiation

What this does not establish

The review cites these two papers as where the formula was first applied to the problem, but does not itself call them the first; the page gives their dates instead.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Penington, and separately Almheiri, Engelhardt, Marolf and Maxfield, did it first.” Both first papers computed the black hole’s side; the radiation’s came next.

24 September 2026. Previously: “Penington, and separately Almheiri, Engelhardt, Marolf and Maxfield, did it first, for the black hole rather than the radiation.” "First" was the page's inference: the 2021 review cites these two papers as where the formula was applied, but does not call them the first. Their arXiv submission dates, 20 and 21 May 2019, are stated instead.

Claim 41 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: What changed was the region the radiation is taken to describe.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The Page curve of Hawking radiation from semiclassical geometrysection 3.1.2

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: since the entanglement wedge of the black hole covers only a portion of the interior, it is tempting to think that the rest of the interior should belong to to the entanglement wedge of the radiation

What this does not establish

Worked out in a simplified model (claim 48).

Later work looked for

How the method works; not a finding later work revises.

Claim 42 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Past the Page time the calculation counts a disconnected piece behind the horizon, an island, as part of that region, and it is that piece which bends the entropy back down.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The Page curve of Hawking radiation from semiclassical geometrysection 3.1.2, figure 6

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: There is an entanglement island, disconnected from the region where the radiation lives.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 8

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: This gives the Page curve; the rising piece comes from the no-island contribution and the novel decreasing piece from the island contribution.

  • Qualifies

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 8

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: A non-vanishing island that extremizes the generalized entropy appears some time after the black hole forms.

    The island exists earlier; it is the smaller answer, and so the one that counts, after the Page time.

What this does not establish

Computed in simplified models; whether islands are consistent in ordinary gravity is disputed (claim 49).

Later work looked for

How the method works; not a finding later work revises. Its consistency is disputed (claim 49).

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Past the Page time that region is calculated to acquire a disconnected piece behind the horizon, and it is that piece which bends the entropy back down.” The island appears soon after the hole forms and takes over at the Page time; it is not acquired then. Named so that "that rule" in the next sentences has something to refer to.

Claim 43 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Almheiri, Mahajan, Maldacena and Zhao proposed that rule and computed the radiation’s curve with it, with the black hole interior becoming part of what the radiation describes.

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The Page curve of Hawking radiation from semiclassical geometryabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: we compute the entropy of Hawking radiation and argue that it follows the Page curve ... The black hole interior then becomes part of the entanglement wedge of the radiation. ... we propose a new rule for computing the entropy of quantum systems entangled with gravitational systems

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Almheiri, Mahajan, Maldacena and Zhao computed the curve that way, with the black hole interior becoming part of what the radiation describes.” The paper proposes the island rule in its abstract, and the next paragraph refers to "that rule", which had been left with nothing to refer to.

Claim 44 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Two groups then showed where that rule comes from: extra saddle points of the gravitational path integral, wormholes joining separate copies of the black hole, which they named replica wormholes.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Replica wormholes and the entropy of Hawking radiationabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: These saddles arise in the replica method as complexified wormholes connecting different copies of the black hole. As the replica number n → 1, the presence of these wormholes leads to the island rule

    Notation restored: LaTeX restored from the arXiv PDF (1911.12333v2), read with pdftotext on 2026-09-24. The text as extracted reads: These saddles arise in the replica method as complexified wormholes connecting different copies of the black hole. As the replica number n\to 1 , the presence of these wormholes leads to the island rule

  • Supports

    Replica wormholes and the entropy of Hawking radiationsection 1, introduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: There is, however, another class of saddles in which the different replicas are connected by a new geometry. These are the replica wormholes

  • Supports

    Replica wormholes and the black hole interiorabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: We show how these computations can be justified using the replica trick, from geometries with a spacetime wormhole connecting the different replicas.

  • Supports

    Replica wormholes and the black hole interiortitle

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: Replica wormholes and the black hole interior

What this does not establish

Both are calculations in simplified models of gravity (claim 48).

Later work looked for

How the method works; not a finding later work revises.

Claim 45 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It is a genuine advance

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from claims 40 to 45: the curve had not been computed from gravity before 2019.

Claim 46 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and, by its own authors’ account, not a complete resolution: it gives the entropy of the radiation, not the quantum state that would carry the information out.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    The entropy of bulk quantum fields and the entanglement wedge of an evaporating black holesection 5

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: However, we emphasize that this does not resolve the information paradox, since it supposes that the generalized entropy of the quantum extremal surface correctly captures the fine-grained entropy of the black hole

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 11.2

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: Therefore the current discussion leaves an important problem unresolved. ... we have discussed how to compute the entropy of Hawking radiation, but not how to compute its precise quantum state.

  • Qualifies

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 1

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: We believe the caveats are only technical and unlikely to change the basic picture.

Other readings

The review’s authors hold that the remaining caveats are technical; Raju holds that the paradox is resolved by another route (claim 50).

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2022 on, "black hole information paradox island Page curve": nothing read that supplies the state of the radiation.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “It is a genuine advance and it is not a resolution.” Stated as the page’s own verdict; it is the authors’ own, and the review says exactly what is missing. The review also calls the remaining caveats technical, so "not a resolution" without qualification overstated it.

Claim 47 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The calculations work in particular model spacetimes, typically with the radiation drawn off into a region without gravity, and what the connecting geometries mean physically is not agreed.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Replica wormholes and the entropy of Hawking radiationabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: The information paradox can be realized in anti-de Sitter spacetime joined to a Minkowski region.

  • Supports

    Replica wormholes and the entropy of Hawking radiationsection 1

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: the auxiliary system is half of Minkowski space, glued to the boundary of AdS. There is no gravity in the Minkowski region

  • Supports

    Lessons from the information paradoxabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Review of the field

    The source reads: We relate this perspective to recent computations of the Page curve for holographic CFTs coupled to nongravitational baths. But we argue that such models may provide an inaccurate picture

  • Supports

    Replica wormholes and the black hole interiorabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: We discuss an interpretation of the wormhole geometries as part of some ensemble average implicit in the gravity description.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 11.2

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: It is possible that some theories of gravity include replica wormhole saddles and black holes evaporate unitarily, while in other theories of gravity they do not contribute to the path integral

What this does not establish

The page reports the disagreement over what the geometries mean without taking a side.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2022 on, "replica wormholes interpretation ensemble average": the ensemble reading is still argued over; nothing settles it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The calculations work in particular model spacetimes with special properties, and what the connecting geometries mean physically is not agreed.” Says what the special property is, which is what the dispute in claims 49 and 50 turns on.

Claim 48 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Geng, Karch, Raju, Randall and colleagues argue that islands may not be consistent in ordinary gravity, where the graviton is massless.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Inconsistency of islands in theories with long-range gravityabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Argument

    The source reads: In several known examples, we show that this tension is resolved because islands appear in conjunction with a massive graviton. ... Our arguments suggest that islands might not constitute consistent entanglement wedges in standard theories of massless gravity where the Gauss law applies.

  • Supports

    Inconsistency of islands in theories with long-range gravitysection 1, introduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Argument

    The source reads: This discussion suggests that the paradigm of islands is inapplicable to standard theories of gravity with massless gravitons.

What this does not establish

An argument from several known examples; the authors say it "suggests" islands are inapplicable to massless gravity, not that it proves it.

Other readings

The review’s authors present islands as general, requiring neither holography nor anti-de Sitter space.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2022 on, "islands massless gravity": the question is still argued; nothing found that settles it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” The page said the meaning was "not agreed" without saying who disagrees. Added the rival argument, with its source.

Claim 49 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Raju argues that the paradox is resolved by a different route, with a complete copy of what fell in always available outside the hole.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Lessons from the information paradoxsection 1

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Review of the field

    The source reads: the principle of holography of information tells us that the region outside the black hole always retains a complete copy of what fell in. This renders the issue of “information loss” moot.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2022 on, "holography of information": nothing found that settles it either way.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” A published rival account; the page reported the dispute without either side.

Claim 50 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What has to give

Claim: What has to give

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinski and Sully proposed in 2012 that the horizon is not as featureless as relativity says, and that an infalling observer burns there.

Kind
Hypothesis. A proposed explanation, not an established one.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Black holes: complementarity or firewalls?abstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Argument

    The source reads: (iii) the infalling observer encounters nothing unusual at the horizon. Perhaps the most conservative resolution is that the infalling observer burns up at the horizon.

What this does not establish

They offered it as "perhaps the most conservative resolution", not as established.

Other readings

The review of the island work resolves the same paradox with a smooth horizon (its appendix A).

Claim 52 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Maldacena and Susskind proposed the year after that entangled systems are joined by wormholes, which would connect the radiation to the black hole’s interior and leave the horizon smooth.

Kind
Hypothesis. A proposed explanation, not an established one.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Cool horizons for entangled black holesabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Argument

    The source reads: We suggest that similar bridges might be present for more general entangled states.

  • Supports

    Cool horizons for entangled black holessection 3

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Argument

    The source reads: The cartoon is speculative, and is based on the assumption that the bridge has a geometric description. It would follow that the horizon itself is smooth and has no firewall.

  • Supports

    Cool horizons for entangled black holessection 6, Conclusion

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: as a normal one-sided black hole evaporates it effectively becomes two-sided at the Page time when it has become maximally entangled with the outgoing radiation. By the ER=EPR principle it is connected to the outgoing radiation by a complex Einstein-Rosen bridge

What this does not establish

The authors call their picture of the bridge to the radiation speculative.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Maldacena and Susskind proposed the year after that entangled systems are joined by wormholes, which would make the interior and the radiation two descriptions of one thing.” "Two descriptions of one thing" is closer to the later island picture than to the paper, which proposes a bridge between the radiation and the interior and, from it, a smooth horizon.

Claim 53 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The older alternatives were a remnant that keeps the information and Hawking’s original answer, that it is lost.

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Information in black hole radiationintroduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Argument

    The source reads: or most of the information goes into a long-lived [8, 9] or absolutely stable remnant [10], or else information is lost from our universe as Hawking proposed

  • Supports

    Black holes: complementarity or firewalls?conclusions

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Argument

    The source reads: Historically, the black hole information paradox presented three main alternatives, each problematic: information loss, purity of the Hawking radiation, and remnants.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Others give up the assumption that gravity is quantised in the way the argument takes for granted.” No source was cited for the removed sentence and none among the page’s sources states it. The alternatives the sources do name are remnants and information loss.

Claim 54 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Each is a proposal and each abandons something that seemed safe.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from claims 52 to 54: a firewall gives up the smooth horizon, the wormhole picture a simple notion of locality, loss gives up reversibility.

Claim 55 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The versions differ on which.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

A summary of claims 52 to 54.

Claim 56 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

The mechanism

Claim: The mechanism

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Two theories, both confirmed, that do not yet agree about the same object.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s reading of the conflict described above it: quantum mechanics and gravity, applied to one evaporating black hole.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Two theories, both confirmed, that cannot both be right about the same object.” The page’s own middle section reports calculations in which both hold; "cannot both be right" contradicted it.

Claim 57 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What happens to the encyclopedia

Claim: What happens to the encyclopedia

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: No agreed account describes, physically, how the information in something that crossed a horizon gets out into radiation emitted from just outside it.

Kind
Open question. Something the page says is not known.
Review
Presented as open. The page says this is unresolved, and the review found that it is.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 11.2

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: we have discussed how to compute the entropy of Hawking radiation, but not how to compute its precise quantum state.

  • Qualifies

    Lessons from the information paradoxsection 1

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: the region outside the black hole always retains a complete copy of what fell in.

    An account on offer, not one the field has agreed on.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “No account describes, physically,” Accounts exist (Raju’s is on the page); what is missing is agreement.

Claim 60 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The problem is a collision between the two theories in a regime where both are supposed to apply, which is why it has been treated as an important clue to what a theory of quantum gravity has to look like.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Black holes: complementarity or firewalls?section 1

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Argument

    The source reads: The black hole information paradox [1] presents a sharp conflict between quantum theory and general relativity, and so is an important clue to their unification.

  • Supports

    The entropy of Hawking radiationsection 5

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: This is not relevant since the conflict with the central dogma appeared at the Page time, when the black hole was still very big.

Later work looked for

A framing of the field; not a finding later work revises.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “which is why it has been treated as the best available clue to what” "Best available" is a ranking no source makes; AMPS calls it "an important clue".

Claim 61 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What was read

  • Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapseHawking, Physical Review D · Physical Review D 14, 2460; abstract as served by OpenAlex (Crossref carries none)Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted brieflyNo open copy found through unpaywall. The paper itself was not read.
  • Information in black hole radiationPage, Physical Review Letters · arXiv:hep-th/9306083v2 (26 August 1993), via ar5ivRead in full, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted briefly
  • The entropy of bulk quantum fields and the entanglement wedge of an evaporating black holeAlmheiri, Engelhardt, Marolf and Maxfield, Journal of High Energy Physics · arXiv:1905.08762v3, via ar5iv; read abstract, introduction and the discussion of the Page curve, and the arXiv submission historyRead in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 4.0 (published version)
  • The entropy of Hawking radiationAlmheiri and others, Reviews of Modern Physics · arXiv:2006.06872v1, via ar5iv; read sections 1, 2, 5, 8, 10 and 11 and appendices A and BRead in full, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted briefly
  • Entanglement wedge reconstruction and the information paradoxPenington, Journal of High Energy Physics · arXiv:1905.08255v3 (29 August 2020), PDF read in full with pdftotext; the abstract and introduction were first read via ar5iv, and the arXiv submission historyRead in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 4.0 (published version); arXiv copy under the arXiv non-exclusive licence
  • The Page curve of Hawking radiation from semiclassical geometryAlmheiri, Mahajan, Maldacena and Zhao, Journal of High Energy Physics · arXiv:1908.10996v2, via ar5iv; read abstract, introduction and section 3.1Read in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 4.0 (published version)
  • Replica wormholes and the entropy of Hawking radiationAlmheiri, Hartman, Maldacena, Shaghoulian and Tajdini, Journal of High Energy Physics · arXiv:1911.12333v2 (24 April 2020), PDF read in full with pdftotext; the abstract was first read via ar5ivRead in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 4.0 (published version); arXiv copy under the arXiv non-exclusive licence
  • Replica wormholes and the black hole interiorPenington, Shenker, Stanford and Yang, Journal of High Energy Physics · arXiv:1911.11977v2 (15 April 2020), PDF read in full with pdftotext; the abstract and the opening of section 1 were first read via ar5ivRead in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 4.0 (published version); arXiv copy under the arXiv non-exclusive licence
  • Black holes: complementarity or firewalls?Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinski and Sully, Journal of High Energy Physics · arXiv:1207.3123v4, via ar5iv; read abstract, introduction and conclusionsRead in full, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted brieflyFirst posted to the arXiv in July 2012; published in 2013.
  • Cool horizons for entangled black holesMaldacena and Susskind, Fortschritte der Physik · arXiv:1306.0533v2, via ar5iv; read abstract, section 2 and the end of section 3Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted briefly
  • Is Black-Hole Evaporation Predictable?Page, Physical Review Letters 44, page 301 · Physical Review Letters 44, 301; abstract in full, as served by OpenAlexAbstract only, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted brieflyNo open copy found through unpaywall.
  • Average entropy of a subsystemPage, Physical Review Letters 71, page 1291 · arXiv:gr-qc/9305007v2 (31 August 1993), via ar5ivRead in full, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted briefly
  • Black hole explosions?Hawking, Nature 248, page 30 · Nature 248, 30; the letter’s opening paragraph, as served in the article page’s description metadataThe cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted brieflyOnly the opening paragraph was read, which is where the temperature, the thermal emission and the evaporation are stated.
  • Lessons from the information paradoxRaju, Physics Reports · arXiv:2012.05770v2, via ar5iv; read abstract and section 1The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted briefly
  • Inconsistency of islands in theories with long-range gravityGeng, Karch, Perez-Pardavila, Raju, Randall, Riojas and Shashi, Journal of High Energy Physics · arXiv:2107.03390v2 (22 December 2021), PDF read in full with pdftotext; the abstract was first read via ar5ivRead in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 4.0 (published version); arXiv copy CC BY-NC-SA 4.0