For black hole gravitational model, one has tipping over of light cones. But in such GRT extensions, this usually is considered just for optical band of electromagnetic spectrum. But what about other parts of E-M spectrum, such as infrared, x-ray, and gamma rays?
In contrast, what about thermodynamics and infrared radiation? That is, heat flows from hot to cold; seeming from interior to exterior of BH. So for former model, one has a certain rendition, which seems markedly different in regards to energy distribution in other models, such as for thermodynamics, and for magnetic field for such BH setting.
Might a mixture of descriptions, gravitational and thermodynamic, seem more descriptive and realistic? But isn`t either BH horizon present or not; or might it not always be physical? Rather does it depend upon the model being referred to?
One has Boyer–Linquist co-ordinates, which suggest a singularity at the horizon. However such singularity can transformed away by another co-ordinate choice. Hence such singularity is not physical.
Analogously, by a choice of models, can one transform away the BH horizon construct; hence no longer physical? That is, for thermodynamics modelling, there would appear to be no horizon, since heat flows from hot to cold, and energy density is assumed to be higher for interior.
Another alternative model might be that of magnetic fields. Do all stars likely have magnetic fields internally and externally, including dark stars? And energy can be re-distributed between such internal and external regions via re-connection, which might even be instantaneously, as described by entanglement concept.
So might a mixture of models be required, in order to give a more realistic description? Might dark star then be a more apt description, in that it allows for more flexibility? High interior mass density, and internal circulation, would seem consistent with extreme curvilinear geodesics i.e. light cones tipping over. However a dark star if designated by horizon concept, reflecting extremes of gravitational potential, might be porous.
For example, mass density of our Sun is sufficient for fusion, with copious neutrino production. Assuming mass density of 4 billion solar mass for galactic BH, then fusion, and copious neutrino production, would seemingly ensue for interior. Then for assumed massive neutrino and internal circulation, and copious kinetic energy, then such neutrinos with curvilinear time-like geodesics would seem confined by gravitational potential i.e. `horizon` of BH. However neutrinos have a magnetic moment; hence not confined? Likewise for baryons?
So a dark star, if designated by horizon concept, reflecting extremes of gravitational potential, would thermodynamically seem porous to photons; and also to magnetic field energy re-distribution, nd even in part for neutrinos.
Alternatively, could one retain a gravitational model and BH horizon (or just gravitational potential?), yet incorporating thermodynamic egress of energy and quanta, and magnetic field re-distribution of energy, vis a vis entanglement concept, as for short duration GRB (gamma ray burst) model? That is, if such entanglement concept is suitable for short duration GRB, then why not for BH gravitational potential in general? So might a mixture of models be required, in order to give a more realistic description?