Dear Christian Corda,
I see that after Einstein left my Tavern, he managed to find you in Italy and to extract from you a number of details of your theory, analogous to Bohr's 'atom'.
You've designed a Bohr analog and applied it with seemingly good success to a number of issues, each of which Einstein was good enough to draw out of you. I am impressed with your creativity. I do feel analogy is an excellent guide to theorizing.
A major thesis of mine these days is that once physicists project mathematical structure onto physical reality, they come to believe in this physical structure very strongly. Cristi Stoica has written about mathematical isomorphisms and I commented on his thread to the effect that mathematicians easily switch between isomorphic structures, but physicists, once having projected structure onto physical reality, have a tendency to get stuck there.
As an example, I believe one can derive Bekenstein's 'area' relation without ever using the concept of information. It can be derived based on nothing but energy. Yet all physicists believe that the holographic principle depends on information.
As I understand your essay, you posit quantum normal modes of the black hole and consider these the states of the BH 'atom'. Analogous to Bohr, you consider state changes to emit radiation and derive the corresponding formulas. I think this is very clever.
I'm not an expert on black holes, so I have no strong opinions. Like you, I do not put much stock in singularities. As noted above, my main focus these days is review of the math structures that have been projected onto physical reality and used to build on. The question is whether other isomorphic structures are better suited to reality.
Is always a good exercise, in my mind, to analyze one's theory in terms of how many such structures it assumes. For example, 'entanglement' depends on 'qubits', so if one wishes to analyze 'lost info' entangled with parts of the inner and outer 'wave functions' [another structure projected on to reality) then one implicitly brings qubits into the picture.
Most physicists are quite happy to assume the structures are real, and they may be, but I think it is eye-opening to ask just how many such "supporting actors" one is bringing along with him in any particular theory. This can be followed by the question, "How would it affect my theory if one or more of these structures failed?"
These final remarks are not targeted at you but apply to everyone who brings a theory of physics to this contest. I believe it is the best way in which we might all move forward.
Like you, I write on ideas that Einstein himself treated, with the above focus in mind. I hope you will read and enjoy my essay.
Anyway, congratulations on an enjoyable and impressive essay and good luck.
Edwin Eugene Klingman