Did Albert Einstein Get It Wrong? Why Either Einstein’s General Relativity or Hawking Radiation Must Be False! By Brian Simpson

I got this article in my newsfeed about the change of time estimated for the universe to decay. And I saw this passage about how black holes can decay: "One of the consequences of this so-called Hawking radiation is that a black hole very slowly decays into particles and radiation. This contradicts Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, which says that black holes can only grow." And they left it hanging just like that, worrying instead about little things like the disintegration of the universe! I joke.

https://phys.org/news/2025-05-universe-decay-years-sooner-previously.html

This led me to thinking over a beer or three, that there is a major problem here that goes to the heart of modern physics, that the egg heads are not confronting, which leads it up to me! Here are my thoughts. I share them here with open-minded people as there is no hope of a mere high school science teacher getting a worked-out article published in a physics journal.So, here goes: my take:

For over a century, physics has relied on two towering theoretical structures: Einstein's General Relativity (GR), which describes gravity and the geometry of spacetime, and Quantum Field Theory (QFT), which governs particles and forces at microscopic scales. But when applied to black holes, these two theories make radically different predictions. One of them must be wrong.

General Relativity tells us that black holes are regions of spacetime from which nothing, not even light, can escape. Once matter crosses the event horizon, it is permanently lost to the outside universe. In this framework, black holes can grow by accreting matter or merging with other black holes, but they cannot shrink or evaporate.

In stark contrast, Stephen Hawking's 1974 application of QFT to curved spacetime led to the prediction of Hawking radiation: black holes emit thermal radiation due to quantum effects near the event horizon. Over time, this causes them to lose mass and eventually evaporate completely.

This leads to a direct contradiction:

GR predicts: Black holes are permanent and can only grow.

Hawking radiation predicts: Black holes emit energy, lose mass, and eventually disappear.

Both statements cannot be true. This is not a subtle technical disagreement, it is a logical inconsistency about the fundamental behaviour of the same physical object.

Physicists often respond to this tension by appealing to the idea of "effective theories," that GR works well when quantum effects are negligible, and QFT works well when gravity is weak. In this view, each theory is said to be incomplete, valid only within its domain of applicability.

But this deflection obscures a crucial logical point. Whether or not a black hole evaporates is an ontological question. It either happens or it doesn't. If black hole evaporation is real, then GR, which strictly prohibits such an outcome, is making a false prediction. Conversely, if evaporation does not occur, then Hawking's derivation is false. Theories that make contradictory predictions about the same phenomenon cannot both be true. One or both must be false.

The pragmatic tolerance of contradiction in modern theoretical physics raises serious philosophical questions. Is physics still a search for truth, or has it become a toolkit of useful approximations? If theories are judged only by how well they work in practice, we risk losing the epistemic discipline that distinguishes science from engineering.

This contradiction at the heart of black hole physics demands resolution not just through mathematical elegance or experimental fit, but through logical coherence. A true unification of GR and quantum theory must eliminate this contradiction, not merely compartmentalise it.

The tension between GR and Hawking radiation is not a minor anomaly. It is a case of direct logical conflict. If black holes evaporate, Einstein's GR is false. If they don't, Hawking radiation is false. The middle ground of "incompleteness" is a useful heuristic but not a resolution. Until this contradiction is resolved, we are left with two of the most successful theories in history, both of which, it seems, cannot be right. It is like building a bridge from opposite sides of a river, and finding that mid-way, the structures do not meet!