Nothing. They are just clasters of stars that at some point were parts of bigger galaxies.
Ok, I stand corrected. So far "Hawking radiation" hasn't been observed directly. Still, there are indirect evidence of it's existance.

deleted

Overlap is not a problem - unofrtunately I have very poor memory, and that's especially egregious when it comes to subjects of science. So if I go through the same thing multiple times maybe some of it will stick. Hence the need to re-read Hawking's seminal book.

I'll try to rememer about the book you speak of, though for now I think I have quite enough material to go through: other than A Short History of Time I've already got Hawking's Grand Design, Steven Weinberg's Dreams of Final Theory and Physics of Star Trek and Beyond Star Trek both by Lawrence Krauss waiting their turn. And this is all just a side thing, I'm not going to push through them like I'm studying for an exam, so it's gonna take me a while before I need even more stuff.

FIrst of all thanks for answering. I'll check the link after later cause i have to run for some errands now.

As for me the alternative theory that fits best is the Electric Universe theory. That basically says that plasma (that is common in the exosphere/outer space) is the mediator for the powers that be and that there are no black holes (with infinite densities) as they've been invented, but instead there's a plasmoid where the "black holes" are that has magnetic forces. And the magnetic force is extremely bigger than the gravitational force.
That's why i came to believe this theory instead of the one with the Black Holes.

Again i might be wrong. But until i realize that, let the fool be... Just voicing my opinion on the matter. You can take what you like.

Cheers

The problem is that EU theory doesn't really fit. At least with experiments. Here is the link about a few observations that contradict EU theory

Actually, I happen to like explaining this sort of thing, so I will explain my understanding of this phenomenon, known as Hawking radiation (guess who that was named after?):

The area by the event horizon is empty; it has zero energy. However, it turns out that "empty" space isn't empty; the Heisenburg uncertainty principle puts a minimum on the uncertainty of the product of energy and time. Hence, if you observe the vacuum at a short enough time scale, the energy will be fluctuating, and hence it's possible for a particle/antiparticle pair to appear out of nowhere, as long as the total energy is 0 (to not violate conservation of energy).

Normally, the particle/antiparticle pair will annihilate each other, so there's no energy coming out of nowhere. However, if the pair happens to cross the event horizon, things get interesting. One member of the pair gets sucked into the black hole, but the other one escapes. Since the escaping particle doesn't get annihilated immediately, it has positive energy; hence, energy appears to come from the black hole.

Of course, in order to not violate conservation of energy, the particle that does not escape must have *negative* energy; this causes the black hole to lose mass. (Remember, mass and energy are the same thing thanks to a famous Einstein equation.) Hence, a black hole can evaporate this way.

Isn't modern physics strange and counter-intuitive?

Something you might find interesting:
For the last few months of his life, his old speech synthesis device was replaced with a Raspberry Pi that emulated the old system.

Apparently, part of the code for that emulator was taken from the emulator Higan. You never know where a piece of code might end up!