Without any evidence to suggest that possibility or without any new insight that such a hypothesis might offer, I don't think the idea would be taken seriously.Is there any merit to the idea that all black hole singularities are in essence one and the same singularity?
I am OK with that since that would at least be timelike.Thus, for an external observer, the mass, charge, and angular momentum may be viewed as residing just outside the event horizon.
I should think so--at least for the Schwarzschild solution--unless the outside observer has an infinite amount of time to wait for the critical mass to cross the critical radius, and he has assembled an infinite amount of mass to chuck in to balance the Hawking radiation.Thus, for an external observer, the mass, charge, and angular momentum may be viewed as residing just outside the event horizon.
This is my understanding--or maybe it's just an opinion.Perhaps I can ask a corollary question here and now: in a closed universe, aren't all black holes destined to become one?
I don't think it's a good idea to talk about time from outside of time and about future events as if they are, in some metaphysical way, actually current events. It leads to all sorts of nonsensical statements, of which I've read plenty, when people confuse the natural world with their model of it where all time is perceived in the present.And if so, aren't they in effect already so, since time is on their side, so to speak? So that the apparent independence of black holes is merely an illusion of the time-bound observer? In other words, from the POV of the singularity, the end of time has already been reached, which is to say they have already merged as one?