Perhaps I’m reading too much into this.
As I (mis?)understand the no hair theorem, it implies that the event horizon is smooth and cannot be distorted. Naturally in our time-frame the material never actually falls into the black hole; any answers must lie in the detail of what happens near the event surface as the black hole expands and contracts. Mabye at least part of the answer lies inside the hole, although this is irrelevant according to the no-hair theorem.
In the end, this comes down to what the no hair theorem actually means. My limited understanding is that it was developed in terms of an isolated, mature black hole. If this is correct, the no-hair theorem only applies to a hypothetical body that Hawking radiation would make impossible. If so, it becomes meaningful to look at what happens inside the event horizon.
Similar arguments to the above lead to the conclusion that the only relevant time-scale for calculations is that of the external observer. Simple transformations (that may yet be incorrect) suggest that material within the black hole that is often said to be collapsing rapidly to the centre (which is indeed the case in its local time frame) is in effect moving at an ever-decreadsing rate towards the event horizon from inside (similar to the material on the outside of the event horizon, but in the opposite direction).
I have no theory to support this last point, but it suggests that once the black hole starts to shrink this “swallowed” information would become available to affect the generation of Hawking radiation.
If correct, the same arguments would negate the idea that black holes can generate wormholes near the singularity (as time reversal implies that all of this would be in a past that never happened)
So no further exotica required??
On the other hand, I find it hard to imagine that these concepts have not been mathematically tested and debunked, or we would be hearing about them from the modeling community.
Help (please)
