At the exact instant an object falls onto a black hole surface, it undergoes Infinite Entropy. It is described by Shannon Entropy [greater than 1-causal path, multiply connected] and can no longer be described by conventional delta-S entropy [only 1-causal path, singly connected].

Nothing happens on a black hole surface, and black holes are 2-dimensional systems, they have no 'interior.'

Dear Abdulhamid,

from teoretical point of view the answer is yes :)

Near or inside event horizons there are extreme conditions like pressure and gravity; densities/pressures surpass neutron stars or quark matter which is perfect ground for exotic phases.

One examplec couuld be already observed quark-gluon plasma in high-energy collisions, but [strictly] stable phases for instance quark matter nuggets might stabilise under black hole confinement.

> Strange matter or colour superconductors: could form if quarks deconfine and reorganise under intense compression.

Quantum crystals not ruled out; lattice like arrangements of ultra relativistic particles bound by residual forces or exotic interactions.

Dark matter hybrids: if dark matter interacts weakly but not solely gravitationally, dense regions near black holes might allow formation of bound states for instance WIMP-onium, mirror baryons... They don't catalyse in the chemical sense, but they enable matter states unreachable elsewhere by providing - ultra-high compression; extreme time dilation and stable containment. Pressure couldnt be exactly infinite, couz they will be lot of zeroes ;} Not exactly< ‘infinite’, but approaching that near singularities. Quantum gravity effects (still unknown) might regularise it, possibly leading to Planck-scale phases->gravitational condensates, preon stars.

dear Kostadin

none of the things you mention are validated teory, they are all hypothetical, every one. you cant build a hypothesis, such as chemistry inside a black hole for two reasos 1) its all hypothetical an 2) a black hole has no interior, it is purely two dimensional, and i almost fogot two others, 3) no atom can exist on a black hole (Schwarzscild Surface and 4) time has come to a complete stop; nothing can happen on a Schwarxschil surface.

When calculating the mass of bodies, density surely has a significant influence on their rotational speed and energy. Density is influenced by temperature and pressure. Were these factors included in the formulas? The moment of inertia is proportional to rotational energy, and angular velocity decreases with increased density. So, gravity increases density, reducing intermolecular space, whereas heat reduces density, increasing volume. Has intermolecular space been included in the calculation when considering environment (P/T) density, volume and mass? Additionally, density affects the electron cloud in a molecule, increasing its volume, which also increases its density. Could the additional energy be accounted for by considering these molecular factors? Could dark matter purely be related to electron clouds, influenced by other factors?

A few more considerations about density linking physical chemistry with dark matter. Semiconductor band gap energy decreases as temperature increases and atomic vibrations increase, leading to larger atomic spacing. Atomic size is inversely proportional to density. Decreased band-gap energy with increased temperature equal to or greater than the photon energy causes photons to be absorbed by the matter. Matter that absorbs photons due to these factors could be described as dark matter. Density increases as gravity increases, and both decrease the speed of light. Larger density will affect matter more strongly. Gravity affects the band gap of some materials through its effect on pressure, and therefore on density and may be responsible for the difference in expected energy levels. Perhaps some correlation exists between the science of semiconductors and dark matter. Thus, bandwidth, absorbance of photons, density, mass and temperature may all be interrelated and probably affect the energy and speed of galaxies. We just need the equation.

I dont understand the human propensity for fantasizing that a black hole 1) has an interior 2) time progresses forward regardless of infinite time dilation 3) Shannon entropy and infinite Multiple Connectivity do not prohibit action and energy 4) the fantasy that there is not infinite entropy, which prohibits anything and everything.

If someone is not qualified or knowledgeable enough to "Answer" a question, then do not answer that question.

It has mass; the maximum mass a black hole could achieve within the current 13.8-billion-year lifespan of the Universe is about 50 billion solar masses, and it has density. Is this entity of mass an interior of the back hole? The mass of the black hole is directly proportional to the Schwarzschild surface radius.rₛ = 2GM/c². Within that radius is the interior of the black hole, which does not have an infinitesimal radius. The interior mass within that radius cannot escape due to the intense gravitational pull. The density of a black hole is inversely proportional to its mass, which is proportional to the Schwarzschild surface radius.

Annwyne, there is no interior to a black hole, it is an entirely 2-dimensional object, not in normal spacetime. The Schwarzschild radius and solution has no bearing on the disposition of anything that falls onto its surface. There is only surface to a black hole, there is no other feature. This is the entire premise of AdS/CFT correspondence, Holographic Theory and Quantum Field Theory, as well as Conformal Field Theory.

The maximum mass of a black hole in normal spacetime has no limit, albeit above a certain mass it would turn inside-out and that may be what a QUASAR is.

On the surface of a black hole there is only infinite entropy and infinite [multiple] connectivity. There is no progression of time. Thus, mass falls to zero on the surface. What keeps it together is that it is frozen in time, nothing more.

To a distant observer, a black hole is a hole in the spacetime framework; there is no "inside" of a black hole. All of the black hole's mass and trapped light are observed from far away to exist at its event horizon. Inside the event horizon, spacetime does not end at the event horizon, and there is an inside to a black hole.

To an observer very close to the event horizon of a black hole or even inside the event horizon, spacetime does not end at the event horizon, and there is an inside to a black hole. The views of both observers are correct, without there being a contradiction, because of the relativistic nature of spacetime. It can also be argued that quantum particles, like electrons, are one-dimensional entities with zero weight, length and height, differing from fundamental particles with 3 dimensions.

Stephen Hawking's description of a 2-dimensional space has been extended by the physicists Roberto Emparan and Harvey Reall in a 5-dimensional space. In 2014, Kunduri and James Lucietti of the University of Edinburgh proved the existence of a black hole of the L(2, 1) type in five dimensions.

In 2022, Khuri and Rainone generalised the Kunduri-Lucietti result as far as one can go. They first proved the existence in five dimensions of black holes with lens topology(Khuri MA, Rainone JF. Black Lenses in Kaluza-Klein Matter. Phys Rev Lett. 2023 Jul 28;131(4):041402. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041402. PMID: 37566867.)

I guess until one of us falls into a black hole, rather than viewing from a distance neither of us can be certain of what we will find.

Annwyne, you obviously do not know the subject, and frankly its getting embarrassing to watch. If this kid wanted a wiki-answer, incorrect at that, he could just go on Wikipedia himself.

everything you are saying is incorrect as far as modern Physicists are concerned. stop pretending to know the subject, again its embarrassing.

and if you cannot limit your discussion to the 4-observable dimensionalities you're just playing science fiction. You don't know what Lie groups are. you have no clue what L(2, 1) means.

Just give up. I am, I don't have time for playing around like this.

Is Wiki a good resource for you? I haven't looked at that recently. I recommend PubMed or other peer-reviewed sources. Is Wikipedia where you get your knowledge? An impressive amount of maths and physics has been generated beyond Hawkins, which appears to be the era of study that you defend, pre-2000s. It's been a great pleasure to discuss this highly contentious topic with you. Wishing you every success with your book 'Quantum Physics, Near Death Experiences, Eternal Consciousness, Religion, and the Human Soul' on the supernatural in the future.