### **Scientific Report: A Hypothesis**

**Title:** **The Stable Temporal Core Hypothesis: A New Perspective on the Structure and Fate of Black Holes**

**Author:** [rawaz ]

**Date:** September 19, 2025

**Abstract:**

This report introduces a novel hypothesis regarding the true nature of black holes, proposing a fundamental solution to the long-standing problems of the "Singularity" and the "Information Paradox." Instead of an infinitely dense singularity, this model posits the existence of a "Stable Temporal Core" at the center of a black hole. The hypothesis is founded on the "Principle of Temporal Conservation," which treats time as a fundamental and indestructible fabric of the universe. According to this model, a black hole's energy is continuously expended in a futile effort to compress and destroy this temporal core. This process manifests as Hawking Radiation, leading to the black hole's eventual evaporation. Upon the complete dissipation of the black hole, the temporal core is released and reintegrates into the normal spacetime fabric.

---

**1. Introduction:**

Einstein's theory of General Relativity has been exceptionally successful in describing gravity on cosmological scales. However, its predictions under extreme conditions, such as within black holes, lead to fundamental problems. The mathematical singularity, a point where the laws of physics break down, suggests that the theory is incomplete. This report presents an alternative model, built on a new physical principle, to transcend these theoretical limits.

**2. Core Principles of the Hypothesis:**

**2.1. The Principle of Temporal Conservation:**

We propose that time, much like energy and mass, is a conserved quantity in the universe. Time can be warped, dilated, or curved by gravity, but the fabric of time itself cannot be destroyed or annihilated. This principle forms the foundational axiom of this hypothesis.

**2.2. A New Structure for Black Holes:**

Based on the Principle of Temporal Conservation, a black hole does not contain a singularity but is instead composed of the following structure:

* **Event Horizon:** The external boundary of the black hole.

* **Layer of Compressed Matter:** A region between the event horizon and the core where all accreted matter is held in a state of extreme density.

* **Stable Temporal Core:** In place of a singularity, the center consists of a region devoid of matter where spacetime is maximally curved into a resilient sphere (a "ball of time") that resists further compression and cannot be broken.

**2.3. The Mechanism of Formation and Evaporation:**

A black hole is formed as a consequence of gravity's immense effort to violate the Principle of Temporal Conservation. This process is a continuous struggle:

* The gravitational force of the compressed matter layer constantly attempts to crush the temporal core.

* The temporal core, due to its indestructible nature, resists this pressure.

* This "struggle" is incredibly energy-intensive. The black hole must convert its own mass into energy to sustain this pressure. This constant, directed energy loss **is** Hawking Radiation.

* Once the black hole has consumed its entire mass-energy in this process, it completely evaporates.

**3. Solutions and Implications:**

**3.1. Resolution of the Singularity Problem:**

This model naturally resolves the singularity problem. Instead of a point of infinite density, it proposes a stable, physical structure where the laws of physics remain valid.

**3.2. Resolution of the Information Paradox:**

According to this hypothesis, information is never lost. As the black hole evaporates, all the mass-energy that encoded the infalling information is returned to the universe. Upon final dissipation, the temporal core itself is seamlessly reintegrated into the universal spacetime fabric, ensuring no information is permanently destroyed.

**4. Predictions and Testability:**

While direct testing is challenging, this model could yield predictions that differ from General Relativity:

* **Gravitational Waves:** During the final moments of a black hole's evaporation, the "rebound" of the temporal core back to a normal state might produce a unique gravitational wave signature, distinct from currently expected patterns.

* **Hawking Radiation Spectrum:** The temperature and spectrum of Hawking radiation in the final stages of a black hole's life might exhibit subtle deviations, reflecting the nature of the core it is interacting with.

**5. Conclusion:**

The "Stable Temporal Core" hypothesis offers a logical and coherent framework that demystifies the interior of black holes while providing a physical cause for their evaporation. This model resolves both the singularity problem and the information paradox by introducing a single new axiom: the Principle of Temporal Conservation. We invite the scientific community to consider this hypothesis and to develop a rigorous mathematical framework to further explore its validity and implications.

---

10 minutes ago, rawaz said:

We propose that time, much like energy and mass, is a conserved quantity in the universe.

I don't think you understand the concept of "conserved" in physics.

Riddle me this:

If,

\[ t=\textrm{constant} \]

then,

\[ \frac{dt}{dt}=0 \]

But obviously,

\[ \frac{dt}{dt}=1 \]

How could that be?

30 minutes ago, rawaz said:

We propose that time, much like energy and mass, is a conserved quantity in the universe.

Mass isn’t a conserved quantity, but conservation laws stem from symmetries (energy from time translation symmetry, i.e. the laws of physics don’t vary) What symmetry is responsible for ”time conservation”?

What testable predictions come from your hypothesis?

Time is a dimension, like length. Is there length conservation, too? How does that manifest itself?

10 hours ago, rawaz said:

A black hole is formed as a consequence of gravity's immense effort to violate the Principle of Temporal Conservation. This process is a continuous struggle:

Gravity does not have a will to do anything or have a plan to overcome time whatever that could mean.

39 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Gravity does not have a will to do anything or have a plan to overcome time whatever that could mean.

11 hours ago, joigus said:

I don't think you understand the concept of "conserved" in physics.

Riddle me this:

If,

t=constant

then,

dtdt=0

But obviously,

dtdt=1

How could that be?

11 hours ago, joigus said:

I don't think you understand the concept of "conserved" in physics.

Riddle me this:

If,

t=constant

then,

dtdt=0

But obviously,

dtdt=1

How could that be?

11 hours ago, joigus said:

I don't think you understand the concept of "conserved" in physics.

Riddle me this:

If,

t=constant

then,

dtdt=0

But obviously,

dtdt=1

How could that be?

We propose that time, much like energy and mass, is a conserved quantity in the universe.

I don't think you understand the concept of "conserved" in physics.

Riddle me this:

If,

t constant

then,

dt = 0 dt

But obviously,

dt = 1 dt

How could that be?

11 hours ago, joigus said:

I don't think you understand the concept of "conserved" in physics.

Riddle me this:

If,

t=constant

then,

dtdt=0

But obviously,

dtdt=1

How could that be?

11 hours ago, joigus said:

I don't think you understand the concept of "conserved" in physics.

Riddle me this:

If,

t=constant

then,

dtdt=0

But obviously,

dtdt=1

How could that be?

11 hours ago, joigus said:

I don't think you understand the concept of "conserved" in physics.

Riddle me this:

If,

t=constant

then,

dtdt=0

But obviously,

dtdt=1

How could that be?

11 hours ago, joigus said:

I don't think you understand the concept of "conserved" in physics.

Riddle me this:

If,

t=constant

then,

dtdt=0

But obviously,

dtdt=1

How could that be?

We propose that time, much like energy and mass, is a conserved quantity in the universe.

I don't think you understand the concept of "conserved" in physics.

Riddle me this:

If,

t constant

then,

dt = 0 dt

But obviously,

dt = 1 dt

How could that be?

The Principle of Making Stuff Up says I can propose any imaginary principle to explain the workings of the universe, without having to account for observational evidence or consistent predictions.

There; that was easy.

11 hours ago, joigus said:

I don't think you understand the concept of "conserved" in physics.

Riddle me this:

If,

t=constant

then,

dtdt=0

But obviously,

dtdt=1

How could that be?

That's right You are right, but you also know that the basis of knowledge is imagination

2 minutes ago, rawaz said:

That's right You are right, but you also know that the basis of knowledge is imagination

No it isn't. The basis of knowledge, at least where the natural world is concerned, is reproducible observation of nature.

But if one does not imagine how the universe works then how would we know But how can one move forward if one does not imagine, or rather does not cross the limits of imagination? Every scientist works by imagining what he believes, but not everything is what scientists imagine, although they must imagine and fail, imagine and fail until it is true in the end

14 minutes ago, rawaz said:

But if one does not imagine how the universe works then how would we know But how can one move forward if one does not imagine, or rather does not cross the limits of imagination? Every scientist works by imagining what he believes, but not everything is what scientists imagine, although they must imagine and fail, imagine and fail until it is true in the end

Maybe there is some mileage in this but it is too all embracing.

What do you mean by imagination ?

Fleming for instance nearly threw away the all important penecillin culture as a failure because he was looking for something else.

Roengten, likewise, was looking for something else entirely when he discovered X rays.

Thank you for your insightful response and for bringing up the excellent examples of Fleming and Roentgen. You ask a very important question: **"What do you mean by imagination?"** I believe the disagreement here is simply in how we define this word.

I see two primary types of imagination in science:

**1. Directed Imagination:** This is the type where a scientist is actively trying to find an answer to a specific question. It's Einstein imagining what would happen if he rode a beam of light, or it's me trying to imagine what is inside a black hole. This is the type of imagination that often involves the "imagine and fail, imagine and fail" process.

**2. Interpretive Imagination:** This is the type that occurs when a scientist encounters an unexpected phenomenon or an accident and must **imagine what it could possibly mean**. This is the true mark of genius and what separates an ordinary scientist from a revolutionary one.

This is where your examples come into play and actually prove my point perfectly:

* **Fleming** accidentally saw that a mold had killed the bacteria around it. Thousands of other people might have seen the same thing, dismissed it as a contaminated lab culture, and simply thrown it away. But Fleming used his **interpretive imagination** to ask the critical question: "What if this mold is producing a substance that could become a medicine?" The act of interpreting that accident was a profound act of imagination.

* **Roentgen** was not looking for X-rays, but when a nearby screen began to glow, he didn't ignore it. He **imagined** that "there must be a new, unseen type of ray that can pass through solid matter."

**Therefore,** while I agree with you that major discoveries are often sparked by accidents, the accident itself is meaningless without the **interpretive imagination** required to grasp its significance.

Imagination isn't just knowing what you're looking for; it's also about having the vision to understand the value and meaning of what you find by chance.

Edited September 20Sep 20 by rawaz

48 minutes ago, rawaz said:

That's right You are right, but you also know that the basis of knowledge is imagination

It's actually more like,

The game I play is a very interesting one. It's imagination in a straightjacket, which is this: that it has to agree with the known laws of physics [...] It requires imagination to think of what's possible, and then it requires an analysis back, checking to see whether it fits, whether it's allowed, according to what's known.

--Richard P. Feynman

10 minutes ago, rawaz said:

Of course. Here is a powerful and well-reasoned response in English, based on the Kurdish text you approved.

That was a most intriguing and thoughtful answer

Thank you.

+1

As to the selected quote, I am not sure what you mean by Kurdish text please elaborate.

12 minutes ago, rawaz said:

I believe the disagreement here is simply in how we define this word.

Actually no, I am not sure I have a suitable working definition of imagination.

The source of my disagreement was the all embracing part.

34 minutes ago, rawaz said:

Every scientist works by imagining what he believes,

I don't know why this is but the larger part of scientific work does not involve new discovery, yet all the scientists who participate in the grunt work which is also part of Science seem to for ever remain unsung.

As our body of scientific knowledge grows the scope for new discovery compared to the work of verifying, recording and collating becomes less and less.

Of course, set against this, the work of imagining new applications and new correlations is expanding, due to the new knowledge.

So the balance and direction of that balance is never fully determined.

Just a small welcome pointer.

Welcome as a new member. I see you have reached your 24 hour post limit.

This is in place as a very effective antispam measure, but only lasts the first 24 hours.

I look forward to further interesting posts in the future.

I thought there was only one definition of imagination, but I guess you can add as many descriptive adjectives to the word to have as many meanings as you want, thus making it useless at conveying information.

Joigus has already taken care of the first instance, 'directed imagination'.
As for the second instance, 'interpretive imagination', that is usually called deduction.

Addressing the issue of imagination further;

I often say I distinguish two complementary processes: analysis and synthesis.

Analysis is about measuring, describing and explaining what is already there.

Synthesis (which I consider more difficult) is about creating something that is not yet there.

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Addressing the issue of imagination further;

I often say I distinguish two complementary processes: analysis and synthesis.

Analysis is about measuring, describing and explaining what is already there.

Synthesis (which I consider more difficult) is about creating something that is not yet there.

You beat me to the puch. I was actually in the process of writing this:

Observation

Induction --> Synthesis (generalisation)

Hypothesis formulation (imagination)

Deduction --> Analysis (prediction)

Observation (prediction confirmation, high-precision tests, etc)

(Something like that.)

This which I would call the "wheel of science" must go full circle from observation to observation, as @exchemist emphasises.

BTW, I totally agree about the synthetic processes being more difficult: extracting the general rule from the myriad of particular cases. Which Kant so masterfully put at the centre of scientific endeavour, with his a priori synthetic judgments. The epitome of these to me is Newton with his observation that the Moon is similar to a very big apple starting its motion with a particularly off-centre trajectory. An example kids should be taught over, and over, and over.

2 hours ago, rawaz said:

But if one does not imagine how the universe works then how would we know But how can one move forward if one does not imagine, or rather does not cross the limits of imagination? Every scientist works by imagining what he believes, but not everything is what scientists imagine, although they must imagine and fail, imagine and fail until it is true in the end

Yes but the thing that determines whether a piece of imagination conveys knowledge about the world, as opposed to being a mere fantasy, or just nonsense, is whether it can be tied to observation of nature. Any fool can imagine all manner of things. That's not hard. But imagination that is consistent with what we observe about how nature behaves is far more constraining - and thus far harder. That is the only form of imagination that is any use in science.

I think that, in the context of what’s been discussed, you can say that imagination (or intuition) is a necessary but insufficient condition for doing science. You have to take the next steps - make testable predictions, have falsifiability, has to agree with evidence.

To echo the message of the Feynman quote, one is constrained by how the universe actually behaves.