Did you read the title of what you quoted, Write4U? The article is about a "doughnut-shaped cloud", not about the shape of a black hole. Specifically, the article is referring to the accretion discs surrounding black holes, not the holes themselves.
Nobody is talking about a hole in space. I am talking about the gravitational effect of the central singularity, and the possibility that a supermassive black hole creates an energetic worm hole instead of a massive singularity.
A black hole is the name for the entire area affected by the singularity. It is what makes the "hole" in the toroid shape of the entire pattern. Its gravity is what creates the spacetime well. The accretion disc is the gravitational result
Observational evidence indicates that almost every large galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its center. For example, the Milky Way galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its center, corresponding to the radio source Sagittarius A*.
en.wikipedia.org
Now consider this from a universal perspective and what a toroid universe would look like?
A central black hole singularity and a universal spacetime accretion disc. If not a single object, then perhaps a multiverse where new smaller universes are born constantly. If new galaxies are born why not new universe?
One thing we do know is that galaxies are still forming and assembling today. There are many, many examples of galaxies colliding and merging to form new galaxies.
science.nasa.gov
What nobody knows is if there is what's on the other side of a supermassive universal black hole.
Black hole cosmology
The minimal coupling between torsion and Dirac spinors generates a repulsive spin-spin interaction which is significant in fermionic matter at extremely high densities. Such an interaction prevents the formation of a gravitational singularity. Instead, the collapsing matter reaches an enormous but finite density and rebounds, forming the other side of an Einstein-Rosen bridge, which grows as a new universe.[5]
Accordingly, the Big Bang was a nonsingular Big Bounce at which the universe had a finite, minimum scale factor.[6] Or, the Big Bang was a supermassive white hole that was the result of a supermassive black hole at the heart of a galaxy in our parent universe.
Shockwave cosmology, proposed by Joel Smoller and Blake Temple in 2003,
[7] has the “big bang” as an explosion inside a black hole, producing the expanding volume of space and matter that includes the observable universe.
This black hole eventually becomes a white hole as the matter density reduces with the expansion.[7] A related theory proposes that the acceleration of the expansion of the observable universe, normally attributed to dark energy, may be caused by an effect of the shockwave.
en.wikipedia.org
Assuming that this is correct, we end up with a constant renewal of the same universe via recycling of the energy potential of the same universe, or the creation of new smaller universes in a multiverse scenario.
It would account for an
alternately expanding and contracting universe.
This
"shockwave" model might also account for David Bohm's Pilot Wave model, which solves the particle duality question.
It would also account for the seemingly endless supply and conservation of energy .
I may be way off, but it is these questions that present to me as the simplest functional model that also satisfies all the remaining questions.
Note that I am not making this up but I am only quoting current hypotheses. I am not thinking about the bits and pieces that must be kept separate during debates on the properties of the universe. I like to weave a mental tapestry that presents a universal landscape.
If the actual science can be mathematically represented, then any concept will sort itself out as we explore the different perspectives, no?
p.s. I may dream big, but I do realize my limitations. All this is probative in nature.
