This just dawned on me putting together Chemistry specifically the the "Light" portion of it. Additionally reference magnetic theory and electrons producing flux. And Star treks deflector theory/concepts. Could a Black hole really be a large large massive storm of something so horribly chaotic that electrons are in an intense state of flux with quanta all over the place being horrifically masked from what ever it is of the phenomena? Potential is a large mass of "Plasma" from an ejected star such a super giant or red giant, that is acting like a deflector. This mass of gobbing plasma is so dense from the massive ejection that all that quanta in the vicinity is being undetectable and so much so that now any quanta near it, with in reach is, part of that magnetic flux affect from some kind of massive massive affect deflector that is a gobble gobble... there was going to be massive gravitational affects anyways... and there was a shock wave. Maybe we don't see a "hole" in the universe, we see plasma acting like a very good blocking affect of our radio telescopes and a big big left over star corona with the destructive nova force factor of a huge red giant one. Its not even holding together now... its just loosely able to do nonrigid non-star things now, things that plasma might have done involving swirling magnetic fields and quanta deflection. (coiling plasma and magnetic fields) Dangerous, but not really a hole in space potentially. Depending on how that rotational swirling is going you could have a black hole, or a intense white hole emitting so much quanta that you get too much information...
OP, I'll first say that you clearly have a misunderstanding of the fact that black holes have never been directly observed, that the things we describe as "discovered" black holes are emitting tremendous amounts of energy (notably x-rays and UV) and we only INFER them to be black holes because the object emitting that radiation is small enough and dense enough that astrophysicists assume that anything that small with that much gravity MUST be a black hole. We have never observed the "blackness" of a black hole because, in truth, they're not actually "black." They're actually stupefyingly bright and radioactive because the intense gravity around them is compressing gas from nearby objects at such incredible pressures as to flash it into incandescence at a few million electronvolts. That's not to say that "quiet" black holes don't exist. Without all that radiation spalling off of them, we'd have no way of detecting them at all. A single star collapsing into a black hole wouldn't have a nearby companion to noisily eat, so a whole system of planets could wind up orbiting it and we'd be none the wiser until we suddenly detect a cluster of gas giants and celestial worlds circling the toilet bowl around an empty patch of space that doesn't seem to have anything in it. Now, having said that... Made a flyby of one of the black holes in Elite Dangerous a few days ago in the Pleiades cluster (shamefully, I forgot which one). At first I was thinking that I am not really loving the way Frontier Development is rendering these collapsed stars these days. It's very weird: there's no "event horizon" to speak of, no menacing-looking black sphere beyond which lies an equally menacing "nothing." Instead, the singularity remains invisible, but as you begin to approach it you start to notice an odd distortion around it, like someone has dropped a spherical lens in the middle of space and it's bending all the light from all around it. The closer you get, the more pronounced the lensing effect gets. And I stopped my totally cheap and expendable Free-Eagle about 18km from what my sensors were telling me was the edge of the black hole (too chicken to get closer) and still didn't see any real event horizon. It was like looking into a giant crystal ball refracting light from every direction at once... and then I realized that even the light around and behind me was being distorted profoundly. Of course, I then made the mistake of moving a little closer to the black hole to see if the effect got worse and was INSTANTLY KILLED for my trouble... Anyway, point is, when I thought back about it I realized that this is actually probably more correct than anything we've been taught to imagine from science fiction and artist conceptions. Think about it: the black hole's gravity is strong enough to bend light into paths so that nothing from INSIDE the hole ever reaches an outside observer. So light that crosses the event horizon cannot escape from it... but light that gets close to it without crossing it can and does, and that means the space immediately above the event horizon is constantly deflecting photons from every direction at once, bending light around it and into paths that distort the original location of those objects. You wouldn't see a "black" area at all, just a darker area of extreme distortion, like a tiny spec in the center of an otherwise huge gravitational lens. This kind of mirrors Hawking's theory from 2014 about black holes not actually having an event horizon and only having an "apparent horizon" that not only fluctuates unpredictably but is also temporary (no, I don't believe he's totally correct, but he might be on to something). The interesting thing is, even if a stellar mass didn't collapse all the way to a singularity -- something like an ultradense neutron star -- you still probably wouldn't be able to see it, because gravitational lensing would both heavily distort and heavily redshift all of its reflected light and even its own emissions -- if any -- would be unrecognizable.
What lies beyond the event horizon is largely inadequate extrapolation given the current state of quantum gravity theories and the available indirect observations. I believe the firewall problem remains just that - problematic - although several resolutions have been proposed.
I think what I've learned is that Black holes do exist. What I was describing is apparently similar to something called: "Plasmatic" Fluctuations - These would exist kind of short in duration, but potentially a phenomena of plasma cyclone could occur. A "Plasmatic" Fluctuation may be a good example to the observer that the star is undergoing nova.
If a star (actually its core) has collapsed as a black hole, it has usually undergone a supernova explosion. I seem to recall there are other scenarios such as collision of two neutron stars provided their combined mass is sufficiently large. I don't recall any discussion of "plasmatic fluctuations" in any of the lectures that I attended 30+ years ago as relating to General Relativity and gravitational collapse nor in any of the popular science articles that I have read since then, so I can't relate my knowledge to your hypothetical framework.
That's just what they told me. Anyways its more of the scenario of plasma in space generating unreadability or near omega-emissions of quanta. I probably incorrectly associated it with nova but it makes sense as a sudden burst of quanta would be typical just before hand, and it could go stormy the other way blocking readability. Thought to have massive amounts of EMF associated locally. She said it was called plasmatic fluctuations and that it was 15 years old. Potentially an ejected plasma could operate after the nova. Maybe this gets into why red mater was developed for star trek.
That would be interesting, what would you do if they were unequal in size/forces, and one gobbled the other?
^^ Hm, you don't say who "she" is nor do you offer references or links. A Google search for "plasmatic fluctuations" doesn't return anything of relevance. The book "Hidden in Plain Sight volume 2: The equation of the universe" by Andrew Thomas describes the Physics of Black Holes and adds some interesting speculation about how the gravitational field becoming repulsive on scales smaller than the Schwarzschild radius could explain dark energy, solve the horizon and black hole firewall problems, and remove the requirement for cosmic inflation with its associated problematic behaviour (eternal inflation). Active physicists dismiss his books as "nicely argued but ultimately empty ideas", which probably means while they don't think his ideas are plain wrong, he's a threat to their income-generating academic niches and popular science book sales. Thomas' other volumes in the "Hidden in Plain Sight" series also offer interesting food for thought. I have yet to spot any factual errors in the chapters on established Physics and his speculative ideas are well grounded if lacking a rigorous mathematical framework (which is reasonable for the target audience). https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-Pla...?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1493274264&sr=1-7
was that book there from about 15 years ago? She didn't say it was still an accepted theory just that it was 15 years old. I think they were just pleased I was thinking about some of this stuff. It does occur to me that if you could have that kind of emf occurring with plasma coiling deflecting quanta readings it might be apparent that maybe that kind of mater would correlate. So maybe some dark mater is plasma coiling in such a way as to deflect quanta transmission. er rather more like a dark nebula like in that ENT episode.
^Who is this "she" of whom you speak? Maybe you should discuss these ideas in the Trek Tech forum -- the science in modern Star Trek is mostly made-up nonsensical gibberish, for example the Voyager episode "Threshold". I still can't relate your statements with Physics as I understand it. Some of the correct words are there but the meaning is a complete mystery.
the comment relates to plasma + magnetic fields... and how it coils together... coiling plasma should emit quanta as electrons moving around from orbital to orbital. Sort of a Bohr model... the relate that deflectors in Star trek and much of tech is plasma related... a deflection of quanta being transmitted could occur just as an emission could occur. I agree it is sort of trek-nology, but this is more of a Quantum Chemistry issue... and Quantum Chemistry roots to Quantum Physics, and thus part of Astronomy as well. from that: Dark nebula: nebula of plasma undetectable due to this sort of phenomena. Although typically would be deflected on some levels of quanta emissions. a total deflection would be highly unlikely.
Not seeing the connection to black holes, which famously are conjectured to have no hair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem
Even your original post doesn't cite any references. It's hard for anyone to get a handle on the meaning of your hypothesis or why you feel it improves upon established theory. I believe current theories are incomplete due to the prediction of a singularity and that a theory of quantum gravity is likely required. However, any such theory is likely to be difficult to falsify experimentally as we have to work with indirect observations of the so-called Big Bang and black hole candidates. Outside the event horizon of a black hole, the only measurable properties are likely to be its mass, charge and angular momentum and those might be identical across several different theories. There's no obvious way to test whether the predicted firewall is a real effect or to get results back from inside the event horizon. In the case of the Big Bang, there's probably more traction if a theory can deal with the horizon problem, predict the properties of the CMB including the quadrupole moment*, explain dark energy and maybe even explain anomalous galaxy rotation curves without invoking dark matter. * It has been suggested the observed moment is a local heliosheath phenomenon overlain on the CMB -- https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.2978.pdf
Here are some papers about naked singularities https://phys.org/news/2017-04-singularity-extreme-universe.html https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.084024 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.09133.pdf Furthermore, even though the shadow forms and begins to grow immediately after the observer crosses the Cauchy horizon, it takes many more crossing times than in the black hole case for the source to be occulted from the observer’s eyes. From: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.044035