If you are referring to visible wavelength energy that we call "light" then not as far as anyone knows. However energy in the form of radiation possibly can theoretically and is termed as Hawking Radiation. I'm no Physicists, but it seems to me if you was able to look down the polar jets of a singularity then given the right equipment and Shielding only Mr. Scott and Spock could vaguely conceive of you might be able to detect such radiation in some visible form or another.

http://arxivblog.com/?p=300

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...black-hole-bet

Finally someone else not posting about religion in this thread! Anyways - that also goes into the idea of Hawking Radiation I suppose - and although blackholes 'suck in light' in a rather simplistic way of describing things - there is always some form of energy/radiation that is expelled outward as well. Again I have always been interested in these types of topics, but sadly due to my laziness as a younger person (school) - any possibly my ineptness as well, the physics and mathematics will forever be beyond me - but it is interesting to still have it dumbed down since it still just sounds so complex and interesting.

What Stephen Hawking Said About Black Holes
Hawking Radiation

Again it is all speculation , since mankind will never be able to truly find out what is actually beyond the event horizon of a black hole, and since it is almost (if not all) unanimously speculated that a trip into a black hole will result in certain death - all we have to rely on is the maths itself for any sort of insight.

Now also what is interesting that since there is nothing that can ever escape a black hole even light, apparently there is a limit on how much mass even a black hole can 'suck up' since there always an eventual ejection of high energy at some point - so that in itself would imply that there is no such thing as infinite space in black hole, or there is a limit on how much a black hole can take in at one time.

As far as I know "Black Holes" start at around 50 solar masses with some in the "ultramassive" category (think billions and billions), don't think there is a upper limit.
I've read that micro ones (whatever the heck that is) evaporate fairly quick.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/c...ack_holes.html

What people fear will happen at the Cern Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INodNZY5ytE

"Jeebizz" check your username theory is better than religion but not if you were born wrong.

Just a bit more on alternate realities:

Matthew Santoro - 10 Pieces of Evidence Alternate Realities Exist


Two topics that I find interesting from that:

The Man From Taured

The Mandela Effect

The Mandela Effect | Examples & Possible Explanation | Documentary

Two obvious things that did stick out which I did have to do a double take on - the cereal Froot Loops, which even I did think it was Fruit Loops - and The Berenstain Bears - not the Bernstein Bears

http://dilemna.info/theory.php

Can We Move Between Parallel Worlds? also interesting.

If we were in a black hole would we want to escape? Theory or religion are not a waste but what WE do with them... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole &c‽

I know that Dirac's equations also had something to do with this, but I can't seem to find them - not that it matters the maths is way over my head anyways.

There are far more interesting things to consider once you get past the relevancy of whether or not light could be trying to escape a black hole.

First light doesn't move. It appears to move to us, but that's a relative thing. Why? because if you're moving at C, time dilation and length contraction zero out both. Photons are effectively everywhere along their destined path at any given time (relative), nor do they experience time (relative to self). Note: This is the kind of sh** that made Einstein's hair stand on end: Non-locality.

Second, if you cross an event horizon the universe is effectively over from an outside observer. Gravitational time dilation compresses all of time in our universe to a single dimension, at the event horizon. No one would be here to observe such an experiment, assuming entropy prevails. After all, most of what we think about the universe is still theoretical.

Of course, we don't actually understand it all. New information is discovered and theories change. At one point in the past physicists were absolutely convinced that anything breaking the sound barrier would explode as if crashing into a brick wall. About 140 years ago they assumed there was an as yet undiscovered material out in space called the aether. It's existence helped solve certain mathematical problems that were unclear at the time, kinda sorta like "Dark Matter" solves certain current problems and likewise cannot be seen etc. Later someone found the missing math and aether was dismissed. Personally, I'm hoping dark matter finds a similar fate in my lifetime, because I find it dubious. But, I'm dubious of most things that can't be observed directly.

@ Luridis - I'm a little confused and disconcerted by what seems a disconnect in your above post. Don't get me wrong since as it applies to this thread it is a good and worthy one, IMHO. However for someone who appears to have some understanding and interest in Science I can't help but wonder why you would add any fuel to the utterly misguided (and often contrived on purpose for the purpose of attacking and dismissing Science) notion that Scientific Theory is the equivalent of merely an opinion or guess, where they have no real substance or value. Pointing out hypothesis or theories that have been falsified just adds to that problem since in Science, Mathematics, and Logic describing "Not A" also helps define "A". It is to the lasting credit of Science that attempting to "poke holes" in new ideas is highly regarded and in fact, a solemn duty.

Additionally it is not wise to dismiss the value of prediction based on observation and/or mathematics since so many predictions have indeed borne out as events and things that were once unobserve-able became possible with advances in technology. Just one example a propos to this thread, the existence of Black Holes, was mathematically predicted bery close to 100 years before any evidence was possible. As for Dark Matter, that cannot be merely dismissed since it is just a name for consistently observed phenomena much like it was obvious that air actually has substance even though normally invisible to us since we all have felt the wind on our faces.

If one looks back at History to times where life was "short and brutish" compared to the Present, what made that change was almost solely due to Science which so many of us not only take for granted but try to dismiss as no better than any other means at our disposal. Anyone who thinks like that would do well to research just how rigorous and disciplined a level 5 Sigma is. People have literally bet everything they own on odds many, many orders of magnitude less.

Funny, I find those two statements to be at ideological odds. So, I suspect you misunderstood the intent on my statements about dark matter. Or, perhaps I didn't state them well enough. So, here goes nothing...

I hope that, in my lifetime, I see dark matter/energy either proven in a concrete and measurable way or I that it is proven to be what I originally suspected when it was presented to me by theoretical astrophysicists: a hack that solves gravity on a galactic scale. The context of the original discussion isn't something I can recreate for you. However, I can tell you that the two educated men explaining this to me left me feeling as if they were desperately reaching for an easy solution to a supremely complex problem. Add to that, they appeared anything but sure themselves, acting as if convincing me would help convince themselves. Given that I was listening to two doctorates in physics I think my bewilderment at their obvious lack of surety is justified.

I don't doubt the existence of the observation. However, I am not convinced to of its explanation. IIRC, galaxies were once thought to be no more than very distant nebulae. Scientific improvements were made and the truth was revealed. Perhaps this will be dark matter's fate as well. I would not be at all surprised if this were to be its ultimate fate. If not, I would be surprised, but no less accepting of proof positive.

I don't see how the future looks at the past is actually relevant here. Considering that, in our own future, people are likely to look back on our time as no less "short and brutish". "The went into space on chemical boosters... My god, Charles, can you believe the balls they had?"

As for probability... My criticism is not academic, and is an opinion based upon other factors. I am a reasonable and thinking individual and am entitled to this. However, I am not unwilling to concede that dark matter/energy exists. After all, I cannot see electrons or magnetic fields, yet proof of their existence is shown to me every day by the equipment I use and even carry in my pocket. However, as of yet, no one has offered either proof of the dark matter/energy theory, or a compelling enough argument for its existence that makes me lean in its direction.

PBS Space Time - What Happens at the Event Horizon? | Space Time

ping Luridis - Firstly, let me state clearly that the entirety of my previous post concerns the immense gulf between falsification (poking holes in theories by testing to substantiate or disprove and move ever onward) and the utter discrediting of Scientific Theory altogether by those that generally wish to put their opinions (including Myth) on a par with 5 Sigma standards without any of that pesky thorough and rigorous testing. Those so disposed need no help in that fiasco. They need to be exposed for the weakness and ignorance they apparently embrace. FWIW I don't place you in that category nor suspect that anyone else does either. It is one thing to be skeptical about the value of Twinkies and very much another to be skeptical about nutrition or eating altogether.

While Science is certainly vulnerable to some exceptionally silly ideas in the short run, ultimately due to the very nature of the process not only are incorrect conclusions revealed but even outright hoaxes over time. Most certainly future generations will view us much as we view our ancestors but hopefully with am even more solid understanding that the process works and steps can rarely be skipped.

Regarding scholars and Dark Matter, the observations have mostly to do with Gravity. Either there is some unaccounted for mass or gravity varies under certain circumstances. Vera Rubin was one of the first to log such data, and being a proper scientist, she didn't assume Newton or Einstein were fundamentally wrong (the Math of both still works within the limitations of each) but that under circumstances they could not observe, things can change and/or be revealed as currently invisible but for the effects. The scholars you mentioned are certainly aware that while we know a great deal how Gravity acts under various conditions we don't yet know exactly what it is or why it is so unbalanced and weak relative to the other three fundamental forces. It is very perplexing that a magnet the size of a dime can overcome the pull of the entire Earth's gravity. One day it will very likely make sense.

So, in closing, you are wise to doubt the explanation since it is so early in it's timeline considering the state of our understanding of Gravity on the Galactic and Quantum scales. It is however unwise to doubt the process that will entertain some folly until we get it right. People tend to want the Reader's Digest binary simple answers but the world just isn't built like that. Things evolve.

There are those, out there in the webs that insist on any doubt, any controversial argument or theory, scientific or not should simply not be allowed to exist.

Personally, I am of the opinion that publishing of facts, alternative theory and even conjecture can and should exist. I admit that my position might be puzzling and... Let me assure you there is no alternative theory of gravitation that I in any way lean towards. I don't actually care which one proves out in the end. That said, there are attitudes beginning to develop in the scientific community that disturb me greatly. From my perspective many of these bear a troubling resemblance to evangelism. As mediums such as facebook and twitter become involved, science inevitably becomes absorbed into popularity and politics and that's where things start to get nasty.

So, why did I say I'd like nothing more than to see Dark Matter disproven in my lifetime? Is it because I favor some other theory. Actually... no. Dark Matter just happens to be the axiomatic 800lb gorilla in the room and I'd like nothing more than to see a whole lot of proponents-acting-with-zealoty suddenly choke on feathers. To be more succinct, I'd love to see something... anything provide a mass attitude adjustment. Hopefully, this would end what I worry is an inevitable canonization of scientific theory. Because then, alternative theory gets another name: heresy. That may seem alarmist, but I remember things that shouldn't be forgotten and religion doesn't need to be formed around a "god" to for it's followers to become a problem.