There are almost as many definitions of a Black Hole as there are Professors in Astro Physics.

Quantum Physics leeds us to a singularity of infinite Mass and no Space.

General Relativity, dealing with Gravitationally Curved Static Spacetime, dumps us at the Event Horizon, with no further hints to an explanation.

One interpretation of General Relativity does give us an insight. That is "Space Flow" theory.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65064.0 It removes the totally unjustified restriction so far put on Spacetime to be a static set of coordinates and in the process creates a better fit for all available data.

How to make a Black Hole.

We have some very good theories backed up by observation of the way Matter behaves as pressure increases.

We can pack just under 1.4 Solar masses into a small space and have it get no smaller, as the strength of the EM field maintains a certain amount of space between a nucleus and it's associated electron/s. (Electron Degeneracy Pressure)

When that compact mass reaches 1.4 Solar masses (Chandrasekhar limit), the inward pressure overcomes the Electro Magnetic force's ability to maintain that spacing and forces the electrons to recombine with the protons in the nucleus, forming just Neutrons.

Spacetime very rapidly crushes in till the whole thing gets compressed further until it tries to compress the Neutrons. We now have a neutron star. Tremendous pressure inwards being held at bay by Neutron Degeneracy Pressure. In other words by the Neutron's need of personal space. The radius of the Neutron star is not very much greater than that Star’s Event Horizon

If the mass is or builds to a couple of solar masses, the inward Space Flow pressure becomes so massive that the "Pauli Exclusion Principle", the requirement by every Neutron to maintain a certain amount of personal space, is overcome.

Neutrons in giving up this space can no longer exist as Neutrons.

A Black Hole is born.

Now we can't see anything. An event horizon is thus formed for all Electromagnetic radiation.

The equations without any knowledge to mediate them will of course run to infinity leaving us with an incomprehensible singularity.

Now the obvious logical question seems to me:

Why can't a Black Hole be a Quark compact Mass?

So let's look at the pattern of behaviour developed above.

We overcame Electron Degeneracy Pressure, to come up against Neutron Degeneracy Pressure. We overcame Neutron Degeneracy Pressure, and even though we now can't see the result, why shouldn't we follow the pattern to it's next logical stage and stop further collapse when we hit Quark Degeneracy Pressure.After all a Neutron was not a fundamental particle.

The 3 Quarks in each Neutron are the Fundamental Particles.

All 3 forces are a part of Quarks and their heavier cousins. Just because they are inside their event horizon, is no reason to believe that all the forces concentrated within elemental particles, (Matter/Energy) are not an equal match with anything Spacetime could give. I not for an instant can bring myself to believe matter/energy can be pushed into a singularity.

An Event Horizon does not have to be an arbitrary point in space around a singularity.

It can be an actual surface of a body made entirely of Quarks, rapidly spinning and so compacted that Electromagnetic Radiation (If Quarks alone produce any) can't leave the surface.

We don't have a theory for Quark Degeneracy Pressure, becauseQuarks are fundamental particles. There is nothing that they can degenerate into and still remain physical.

Further compression is impossible.

On the other side we have spacetime. No ordinary spacetime but spacetime that has been super compressed as it funnels in at the maximum possible supply rate. If you were to add even one quarks worth of mass the size of the interface would have to grow by one planck's worth of spacetime to be in balance.

Movement is Temperature, and no Matter can reach absolute zero.

All and any movement by Matter uses up space, even the vibration and spin of a Quark. That space must be replaced for the Quark to keep vibrating and spinning.

In a Black Hole we therefore have a balance between Quarks demand for more space, and Space"s flow and compression (density) limits.

This balance point is what we recognise as an Event Horizon.

The point in space that represents the maximum compression (density) and Flow rate of Spacetime, at any one moment for the amount of mass demanding space. The Quark surface of the Black Hole.

We can't see it by Electromagnetic Radiation, but it is wrong to say No Information leave's a Black Hole. By the amount of demand on Space it is telling us exactly how much Mass it represents.

That is information from the other side of the Event Horizon.

If we were to believe the Quantum point of view and have everything at a point in the centre, then we don't only have to deal with infinity, but with different Black Holes, we would have different infinities.

How ridiculous is that?

In the absence of observational and experimental data, all hypothesis have to carry the same weight.

But. Occam's Razor states...

Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

Thoughts?