As we all know the General Theory of Relativity also talks about blackholes. And by this scientists have interpreted that not one can escape a blackhole's eventhorizon even light. According to an article in scientific american, Stephen Hawkings said that light was needed not to escape a blackhole's eventhorizon because it doesnt even get in there anyway. The light is trapped on the surface or boundary of the event horizon.That, accord. To them creates an illusion of light being sucked in.

If this is so does scientists have a substantial evidence that a matter can be really absorbed by the blackhole? Coz blackholes are invisible and can only be identified by the speed of its surrounding objects. Do they really have an evidence of this or is it yet to be developed?

Well firstly theoretical astrophysics is a bit removed from scientific journalism because it makes predictions based on mathematical solutions but those don't necessarily literally descibe a stellar object. They describe some properties, but there could be much much more to it than that.

And that's kind of the situation with GR and black holes.
GR is a very centralized thorum that correlates all observation of any particular element or association, however it is still limited.
One of the areas is in black holes. The whole term came about because it was a hypothetical mathematical solution (based on chandrasekhar's work) that produced a singularity.

A singularity isn't an object by any means. It's a space dragon.
A singularity is when an equation won't solve because the two halves are imbalanced.

It means the math is incomplete. That's what the black hole model tells us when we look at GR. It's incomplete because singularities don't exist in nature. Mythology, but not nature.

Note, that doesn't mean black holes don't exist, but there's more to them than a GR thought-experiment and some rudimentary math on likely properties.

Note also, there is the same problem with Relativity in SR, you get a singularity on any Lorentz solution at lightspeed, but not over. So there's a space dragon preventing travel at the speed of light, but the math works fine to go faster than or slower than light.
That's definitely not how it actually works, it just means the math is incomplete and there's more to learn and know on the topic before we start building technology that can use the math.

One more edit, the confusion I think is because scientific-journalism presents theoretical math as literal stellar objects when they only describe properties.
It's like a model of the central nervous system and brain in a humanoid shape, all neurological strands and clumps with no bone, muscle or skin, taking this picture of the nervous system and saying, "This is what a human looks like."
No, it doesn't.

I see,so the scientists today do not have much info about blackholes and that even mathematics has limitations in explaining its properties or characteristics. Well i guess we all have to wait or make a contribution to discover the undiscovered.

Well yes, what we can do is invent new ways to make observations in nature, continue correlating and falsifying hypotheses, continue developing theorum based upon these observations and correlate them with reproducible experimentation...

it's a time consuming process.

That's why im in love with science. It gets us to think think and think. Super cool. :D

it's all done with mathematical equations, they change the equation, they change the outcome... they will get it right one day...

How i wish i could be one of those persons to get it right >< haha

This is the feeling you get when the epiphany of visualizing a working natural mechanic that was once just math to you, is what it's like.
It's like you just figured out the universe and discovered a whole new way at looking at everything and the coolest part, it's not a lonely place. New friends become curious about you, they've developed and adored these epiphanies too.

It's kind of like being happy then getting happier.
You get it just from studying/learning the material if you're into it. I suspect it's that way about all deep interests a person can have or practise.

FYI I've only got a Yr10 education. I was a homeless kid. I learned everything hiding out from other, tougher homeless kids in libraries and it just kind of took.

Not really. The problems with the math occur at the center of the black hole where the physics no longer follow the laws as we understand them. There is that old "divide by zero" thing working.

However, along the event horizon and significantly nearer and farther from the event horizon, GR works just fine. The reason the light can't get out is that space (which has no speed limit) is falling into the black hole faster than the speed of light (Einstein was such a smart guy!). Therefore the light is more or less going backwards if it is directed to the outside. Hawking radiation can get out due to spontaneous creation of particle pairs, but that's another story.

The mass going into the hole adds in the normal way to cause the gravitational effects to be as expected. This property results in a supermassive black hole at the center of most galaxies being a set percentage of the mass of the galaxy.

As mass approaches the center of the blackhole, time slows to a crawl, and the laws of physics start to break down. It's pretty much anybody's guess after that point.

But still metalwing, this remains a visualization of the math as the math states but not a visualization of a correlative natural mechanic inspired or governed by the math. It's theoretical astrophysics, it's not astronomy. These physicists are cartoonists with accurate math, but it's almost always greatly limited and generally governed by the assumption of a closed system (doesn't occur in nature, it's a minkowski universe).

GR breaks down at the event horizon. No laws of physics do, they work fine. What GR does is it just doesn't describe the physical situation.

String theorest's version is much more likely as a stellar object and doesn't contradict GR, it just doesn't have any correlation, it's just a working hypothesis.

The most likely mathematical solution is the precept on c. is wrong.

@metalwing so a multiverse could be possible. Another universe with different laws of physics? What do you think? Coz i cant keep thinking it might lead that way

@ van dude are you an autodidact? :>