A Visual (Information) Paradox

Search for answers about Stephen Hawking’s new theorem reveals a Scientific American tradition of illustrating the confounding complexity of black holes

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


In a blog post last month, Scientific American editor Seth Fletcher shared an interview with Andrew Strominger, in which the Harvard physicist attempts to explain the controversial new paper he recently published, in collaboration with Stephen Hawking and Malcom J. Perry, on black holes and the so-called information paradox. The content of the interview is both intriguing and comprehensible, at least in terms of the language used. But as the conversation moved swiftly past the essentials of the information paradox—the idea that black holes destroy information, which defies the laws of physics as we know them—and onto Hawking’s novel “soft hair theorem,” I found myself scrolling down in search of a visualization of some kind to help me process the words I was reading.

Towards the end of the article, there was indeed a graphic of sorts: a Penrose diagram apparently depicting “a semiclassical evaporating black hole, as presented in ‘Soft Hair on Black Holes.’” 

Diagram from “Soft Hair on Black Holes,” by Prahar Mitra


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


After a quick Wikipedia search for “Penrose diagram,” I had gained a very superficial understanding of how to read such an image (vertical dimension = time; horizontal = space), but beyond that, I must admit I was lost. Where was the structure of the black hole? Where was this so-called hair, and how was I to observe its alleged softness?

What I needed was a good infographic to demonstrate the basics of black holes and the information paradox. Again, I took to the internet, and lo and behold, not only did I find an infographic, I found it in Scientific American, within an article by Roger Penrose himself. 

Graphics by Alan Beechel

In this series of graphics from 1972, the Penrose diagram is reimagined as a sort of technical diagram in three dimensions. The drawings are minimal, but clear; the labeling and captions are carefully crafted to explain what each piece of geometry denotes, and by offering the viewer multiple vantage points, the physical structure of the black hole and its effects on various entities—time, space, light—become apparent.

However, I had yet to address the information paradox. For that, I consulted another set of infographics, this one from a 1977 Scientific American article by none other than Stephen Hawking. Using the same technical-diagram approach, this series of graphics addresses what happens to particles that fall into a black hole. Again, a well-ordered series of minimalist drawings accompanied by explanatory text effectively introduce what is inherently difficult to visualize.

Graphics by Dan Todd

Of course, to advance my understanding towards the latest theoretical breakthroughs, I would have to find something a bit more recent. This graphic from an April 2015 article on firewalls—a theory that attempts to resolve the information paradox—would do the trick.

Graphic by Jen Christiansen

As one would expect, this graphic is stylistically quite different from the others I’ve just cited. However, it retains the important qualities that made its 1970s counterparts successful: a consistent and economical visual language, deliberate organization, and clear labeling and annotations.

So, I can now say that I am closer to understanding the soft hair theorem. At the very least, I appreciate the underlying quandary and what is meant by “hair” in this context. But I still have yet to grasp the substance of Hawking’s latest assertion. Perhaps this represents a new challenge for scientific illustrators (or at least very ambitious ones with robust backgrounds in physics): Go beyond the Penrose diagram. Make an infographic explaining the soft hair theorem. Visually oriented science enthusiasts everywhere will thank you.

Amanda Montañez is senior graphics editor and been at Scientific American since 2015. She produces and art directs information graphics for the Scientific American website and print magazine. Montañez has a bachelor's degree in studio art from Smith College and a master's in biomedical communications from the University of Toronto. Before starting in journalism, she worked as a freelance medical illustrator. Follow her on Bluesky @unamandita.bsky.social

More by Amanda Montañez

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe