What is the new black hole theory of Stephen Hawking?

Hawking is trying to resolve a paradox between quantum mechanics and General Relativity. General Relativity says that you can merrily free fall into a black hole and survive (IF the black hole is big enough - tidal forces actually decrease at the event horizon the larger the black hole). A recent quantum mechanical theory says that somebody free falling into the black hole would be incinerated by a 'firewall' (QM effects) just inside the event horizon.

So, Hawking is trying to make the paradox go away by re-defining the nature of the event horizon. Rather than a defined boundary, he interprets it as a fluctuating ill-defined boundary and this is somehow supposed to eliminate the paradox. I haven't got around to actually reading his paper yet, so I can't explain anymore at this time.

If black holes are the result of a spent star and it is essentially sucking in all the matter around it and crushing it into what is know as a black hole. Would it not be the start of a new star? It is like making a nuclear fuel by compressing all that matter till it blows. Or is this how the universe started ? Take all the matter that is and keep packing it all in till it blows up and makes the universe all over again.

Where did you read it? Did you read his actual article?

Astrophysics (including Hawking) like to make up pretend universes with rules of physics different from the real world. Then they ask questions like, how would black holes behave in this pretend universe? And, how can we change this pretend universe so that it is more like the real universe? Can we change the rules enough so that the pretend universe looks like the real universe?

That's what Hawking has done --- but so far, his pretend universe is very much NOT like the real one we live in. Until he, or somebody else, can do that, we don't have to worry that his conclusions are true for us.

I think to really understand what he is talking about here, you need to know about something called anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence. But since the real world is not anti-de Sitter (or at least, that's the way things seem to be) ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-de_Sitter_space

Why bother? Why not just wait another 10 years so they can refute this theory. And the one after, and the one after that, and so forth? It's unfortunate that scientists are so biased. unfortunately, they are missing a very large chapter in their quest for knowledge.

Can we now say "Black Hole Matter"?

I honestly don't believe in black holes until it's been significantly proven and to date I don't believe they have even come close to that.