Hi Guys, sorry for my absence but lots todo before my department goes into christmas hibernation:

So a quick response from the physicist. I showed her the thread and we discussed it yesterday for a while. A lot already was mentioned which is quite accurate.

The most important points are :

1. We really have no idea whats going on behind the event horizont of a black hole plus no black hole was ever directly observed - all speculations are based on inference and simulations.

2. The event horizon has no mass ( as it was mentioned ) it is a calculated radius or sphere of influence which is the dead end for conventional information except for Hawkings radiation. All inference we make on whats going on beyond that is more or less speculativ.

3. When the two event horizons of a binary black hole "touch" they will infact ( approximatly ) form a hourglass bridge for a very very short amount of time before they would practically become one deformed event horizon until the mass centers are close enough and the distance rotation of the points is fast enough to compensate for the "wobble". Since they are rotating the end result will be an oblate spheroid until everything has settled down. As far is I understand, the topology of the black holes are indeed an area of strong disagreement since some simulations proposed solutions which would violate the no-hair theorem, which states that black holes can only be characterized by information which is observable meaning we can make no assumption about the mass itself since it is beyond the event horizon. Some simulations assume mass is dispersed within the event horizon others assume mass points which both make trouble with the math at some point

Also, a little bit of shameless self-promotion - I got permission to make the design available since scientists are all about making stuff accessible. But to make up for that the piece was given as a present with no charge to her

.

http://shpws.me/N6H6
Also a little side note to why Stephen Hawking does not have a Nobel:

Plain and simple - none of his hypothesis actually have been expirimentally verified. It is the curse of the theorist I guess. But he has gotten tons and tons of other prices and honours so he is covered.

History will surely put him up there with Bohr, Einstein, Planck, Maxwell and others so no worries there

.

Einstein did not get his nobel for General Relativity because it could not get really be verified at the time.