[Kryptid]

What energy, where did it come from.?

The energy present in the Big Bang singularity.

The influence of dark energy appears to be increasing the accelerating expansion of the universe. Are you perhaps referring to dark energy. ?

No, I'm talking about "regular" energy.

If Dark energy has its origins in the HUP/zero point energy of the vacuum/quantum vacuum, is it real energy or is it just a temporary violation, because the energy is only momentarily borrowed and payed back to the vacuum. ?

Nobody knows what dark energy is.

Did the energy really exist prior to the big bang, or was it just a temporary violation of the laws of thermodynamics?

As far as we can tell, the total energy in the Universe has been constant since the beginning of time. So there was no violation.

That is not the most widely accepted model of today, it is still a model.

Just like the flat Earth model is a model.

Yes I know, but the interesting point with Hawking radiation is that virtual particles are separated and become real, in a rapidly  inflating universe due to dark energy could virtual particles not be separated in a similar way prior to the hot big bang and what follows.

I don't know. I've wondered about this myself. I presume that this would still not represent a violation of the first law, as the energy supplied by the expansion is being converted into particles.

[pensador]

The energy present in the Big Bang singularity.

The inflationary model has no big bang singularity. It happened over a region of inflating space.

I don't know. I've wondered about this myself. I presume that this would still not represent a violation of the first law, as the energy supplied by the expansion is being converted into particles.

This link might interest you https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.05523.pdf Particle pair creation by inflation of quantum vacuum inn an ion trap.

Nobody knows what dark energy is.

I can think of several theoretical physicists that have reasonably plausible ideas on what dark energy is, and how gravity works. They might be correct or not as the case may be A popular theory is Eric Verlindes entropic gravity.?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed

That is the generally accepted idea.
except
Big Bang theory suggests otherwise. Inflation > Baryogenesis > nucleosynthesis etc
Hoyle theorised mass was constantly appearing in space, a cold slower form of particle creation.
Hawking theorised virtual particles can be converted to real particles via black holes gravity (converting gravitational energy to particles, energy is conserved here)

Thanks for your great support.

If we can't, then the only possibility to see a constant ejected steam of hot molecular from the plasma disc is by the activity of new mass creation at the SMBH.

As has been pointed out to you many times before, that would break the laws of physics. Mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So we know that's not what's going on. If it isn't coming from the black hole, then it's coming from an outside source. Magnetic fields are not like those force fields you see in science fiction. They aren't impassable barriers. Besides, the outer, cooler area of the accretion disk wouldn't be hot enough to be a plasma and as such wouldn't have an intrinsic magnetic field.

How can we explain the molecular jet stream that is moving Upwards/downwards at ultra velocity of 0.8 speed of light?
What kind of force can set that jet stream which is moving high above the accretion disc plane and includes about 10,000 Sun mass?
Don't you agree that the only power that can set this molecular jet stream is the mighty magnetic filed?
How can you de estimate this mighty power?
I still don't understand why the magnetic field  can trap any molecular that is ejected out from the accretion disc (more than 99% of the matter in the disc), but it can't trap any molecular that try to cross it?

I am not saying that particles cannot be created or destroyed. I'm talking about mass and energy.

So, do you agree that particles can be created or destroyed?
If so, that's all we need for Atom creation.
I have already proved that Atom is a cell of energy:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75261.40
Let's focus on a proton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
"A proton is composed of two up quarks, one down quark, and the gluons that mediate the forces "binding" them together."
The total mass of those three quarks is:  9 MeV/c^2.
Therefore, if those quarks can be created at the accretion disc around the SMBH, they can be the seed for the Proton.
The ultra high energy/temp/ eclectic/magnetic field at the accretion disc, can add the requested energy for setting the gluons.
This gluons contribute 99% of the total mass in the Proton (As the total mass of a Proton is over than 900 MeV/c^2)
Therefore, in the accretion disc we can see particles at the most inwards side of the disc - At this aria - quarks are created, while as they drifts outwards, they gain the energy of the gluons which converts them into Protons and Neutrons.
Those elements set the Hydrogen Atoms.
However, as all the plasma orbits at Ultra high velocity (0.3 c), Hydrogen Atoms collide with each other and sets Helium and the whole list of Atoms and molecular that we know including water, gold and even Uranium.
As this mass ejected from the accretion disc, they are trapped by the mighty magnetic field around the accretion disc and boosted upwards/downwards at 0.8 speed of light.

P.S. - Unfortunately, I couldn't reply as I had to go to Nederland due to a very sad circumstances.

[Kryptid]

How can we explain the molecular jet stream that is moving Upwards/downwards at ultra velocity of 0.8 speed of light?
What kind of force can set that jet stream which is moving high above the accretion disc plane and includes about 10,000 Sun mass?
Don't you agree that the only power that can set this molecular jet stream is the mighty magnetic filed?
How can you de estimate this mighty power?
I still don't understand why the magnetic field  can trap any molecular that is ejected out from the accretion disc (more than 99% of the matter in the disc), but it can't trap any molecular that try to cross it?

First of all, none of that requires energy/mass to be created out of nowhere and as such is not evidence for you idea. Second of all, "over 99%" is not 100%. You wouldn't expect the matter on the very innermost of the disk to be stopped by the magnetic field anyway since the magnetic field is generated by the disk itself and not by the black hole.

So, do you agree that particles can be created or destroyed?

Yes, it happens all the time. A muon decays into an electron, a neutrino and anti-neutrino. The muon is destroyed and three new particles are created in its place. However, and this is the important part, the total amount of mass and energy remains exactly the same.

If so, that's all we need for Atom creation.

Atoms can be created, yes. It happens all the time in nuclear fission. The total mass/energy does not change at all, though.

The ultra high energy/temp/ eclectic/magnetic field at the accretion disc, can add the requested energy for setting the gluons.

The total mass/energy before and after the creation of the protons would be the same. If the mass/energy to create it came from the disk, then the disk now has less mass/energy than it had before.

However, as all the plasma orbits at Ultra high velocity, Hydrogen Atoms collide with each other and sets Helium and the whole list of Atoms and molecular that we know including water, gold and even Uranium.
As this mass ejected from the accretion disc, they are trapped by the mighty magnetic field around the accretion disc and boosted upwards/downwards at 0.8 speed of light.

That's nice and all, but what happens once all of the mass/energy of the disk is depleted? Then the accretion disk should disappear.

[pensador]

On a small scale the dynamic Casimir effect produces particles.

On a larger scale Fast spinning Neutron Stars/Pulsars have huge magnetic fields, that are also thought to be able to produce particles from the vacuum of space. The surfaces of some neutron stars are apparently moving at 0.25c, mind bogglingly fast. I guess that this form of particle production will take some energy from the neutron star and slow its spin. 

[Dave Lev (OP)]

On a small scale the dynamic Casimir effect produces particles.

On a larger scale Fast spinning Neutron Stars/Pulsars have huge magnetic fields, that are also thought to be able to produce particles from the vacuum of space. The surfaces of some neutron stars are apparently moving at 0.25c, mind bogglingly fast.  I guess that this form of particle production will take some energy from the neutron star and slow its spin. 

Wow!
That is really important information.
Neutron Stars/Pulsars have a mass size that is a friction of a friction of the SMBH.
We know that just in the accretion disc there is about three Sun mass.
So, if "Neutron Stars/Pulsars have huge magnetic fields" what kind of magnetic field could be evolve around the SMBH accretion disc?
If the magnetic field around a Neutron star/Pulsars are thought to be able to produce particles from the vacuum of space, than the magnetic filed around the SMBH should be able to produce much more particles.
But, particles are not Atoms.

Atoms can be created, yes.

In order to set an Atom we first must set Proton & Neutron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
"A proton is composed of two up quarks, one down quark, and the gluons that mediate the forces "binding" them together."
Hence, if we break down the proton - what do we get?
Do you agree that we should get Quarks and Gluons?
Quarks are very clear particles, but what about gluons?
Is it a particle?
Is there any gluons particles?
Have we ever found one gluons particle in the whole Universe?
Do you agree that gluons represents a pure energy?
If the gluons is an Energy, than do you agree that the Atom represents a cell of Energy?
Hence, if you wish to creat a new proton you must have the requested quarks + the requested energy to set the gluons.
Please remember - the mass contribution of the gluons to the proton is more than 900 MeV/c^2. while all the quarks is a proton contribute about 9 MeV/c^2. (less than 1% from the proton).
Therefore, if a gluons isn't a particle and before the BBT there were only particles, how can we dream that the BBT can create even one atom without the gluons?
Is there any possibility for a bang (even if we call it big bang) to create gluons?
If it can't create gluons, how it can create an Atom?
If the BBT doesn't add energy to the existed articles (that were there before the bang), how it could create Atoms?
Don't you agree that the accretion disc around the SMBH is the only place in the whole Universe where the energy of the magnetic/electric power + Temp (10^9) + Velocity (0.3c) + pressure is high enough to add the gluons to the quarks in order to form new proton?
Do you believe that the Big Bang can create those kinds of energy/power/conditions (especially the magnetic/electric power)?
How the BBT can add that gluons without having those key requested elements?
How the BBT can't set even one proton if the gluons is not a particle?
Do you agree that if "Neutron Stars/Pulsars have huge magnetic fields, that are also thought to be able to produce particles from the vacuum of space" than the SMBH should also be able to produce articles (especially quarks) at the vacuum of space in the innermost of the accretion disc?
Therefore, we clearly see mainly particles at the innermost ring of the accretion disc, while at the outermost side of the accretion ring we clearly see molecular.
That proves that the new born particles are drifted outwards as they orbit at ultra high velocity (of over than 0.3 c).
Do you agree that as they drift outwards they become part of the plasma in the accretion disc, and directly affected by the ultra magnetic/electric power?
So, do you agree that the power/temp (10^9)/density/peruse at the accretion disc is the only place in the whole universe that can add the gluons to the quarks and form new proton and new atom?

How can we explain the molecular jet stream that is moving Upwards/downwards at ultra velocity of 0.8 speed of light?
What kind of force can set that jet stream which is moving high above the accretion disc plane and includes about 10,000 Sun mass?

There is a 10k sun-mass amount of material moving at 0.8c?  How does it not exit the galaxy?  That's well above escape velocity from 'high above the disc plane'.

Ghostly Gamma-ray Beams Blast from Milky Way's Center
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2012-16
The two beams, or jets, were revealed by NASA's Fermi space telescope. They extend from the galactic center to a distance of 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane.
The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused.
It would take a tremendous influx of matter for the galactic core to fire up again. Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required.
In this article they try to explain this jet as: "a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused"
I think that magnetic field is the only source of power that can boost 10,000 Sun mass in this kind of molecular jet steam which had been ejected from the accretion disc.
So, just try to figure what kind of magnetic field is needed to do that kind of job.
It is clear to me that all the molecular that ejected from the accretion disc are boosted upwards/downwards due to the ultra magnetic field.
Therefore, if a molecular from outside the magnetic field will dare to come closer it will also will boosted upwards/downwards with that jet stream.
Hence, nothing can theoretically cross the impact of that ultra magnetic shield.
Not even one molecular from outside.
Therefore, I totally disagree that the source for that mass is:
"Shoving 10,000 suns into the black hole at once would do the trick. Black holes are messy eaters, so some of that material would spew out and power the jets,"
The SMBH does not shove even one Atom/molecular from outside.
We have never found any evidence for that and we will never find!
It is also not logical that while more than 99% of the mass in the plasma is ejected out from the accretion disc, a mass from outside will try to get in. The same power that ejects all of that mass (over than 99%) from the accretion disc should prevent from any molecular to get in!!!

You wouldn't expect the matter on the very innermost of the disk to be stopped by the magnetic field anyway since the magnetic field is generated by the disk itself and not by the black hole.

Why the SMBH can't generate magnetic field?
Do we have prove for that?
Do we know the real process at the SMBH?

[Halc]

Therefore, if a gluons isn't a particle and before the BBT there were only particles

BBT says all the 'particles' existing today were created after the big bang.

Do you agree that if "Neutron Stars/Pulsars have huge magnetic fields, that are also thought to be able to produce particles from the vacuum of space"

They're not produced from the vacuum of space.  They're produced from the magnetic field of the Neutron star according to the statement you quote.  If just the vacuum was enough, you'd see such particle creation all the time everywhere.

than the SMBH should also be able to produce articles (especially quarks) at the vacuum of space in the innermost of the accretion disc?

The accretion disk is not a vacuum.

There is a 10k sun-mass amount of material moving at 0.8c?  How does it not exit the galaxy?  That's well above escape velocity from 'high above the disc plane'.

Ghostly Gamma-ray Beams Blast from Milky Way's Center
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2012-16

The two beams, or jets, were revealed by NASA's Fermi space telescope. They extend from the galactic center to a distance of 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane.
The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused.
It would take a tremendous influx of matter for the galactic core to fire up again. Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required.

OK, that mentions a 10k solar mass cloud being required to get back into 'gulp' mode from its current 'sip' mode.  No mention of anything moving at 0.8c mentioned.  The detected bubble is faint (not massive), and is an effect from a 'gulp' perhaps a million years ago.  The bubble extends to 27000 LY, so it's moving at best at 27 ly per 1000 years, hardly 0.8c.

The jets, if fast moving material, are the produce of the current 'sip' mode.  If they're a remnant of the big mass from a million years ago, the jets must be slow indeed to still be there.

Therefore, if a molecular from outside the magnetic field will dare to come closer it will also will boosted upwards/downwards with that jet stream.

That cloud is the source of the energy for the jet.  It is the gun, not the bullet.

Therefore, I totally disagree that the source for that mass is:
"Shoving 10,000 suns into the black hole at once would do the trick. Black holes are messy eaters, so some of that material would spew out and power the jets,"

OK, so you quote this article to support your assertions, but reject what it says.  Classic.

Why the SMBH can't generate magnetic field?
Do we have prove for that?

A reasonable question.  Black holes preserve charge and angular momentum.  Seems plausible.

[Kryptid]

Hence, if we break down the proton - what do we get?
Do you agree that we should get Quarks and Gluons?

You can't have free quarks due to color confinement, except, debatably, in a quark-gluon plasma (but that automatically involves more than a single proton).

Quarks are very clear particles, but what about gluons?
Is it a particle?
Is there any gluons particles?

Yes, gluons are particles too.

Have we ever found one gluons particle in the whole Universe?

Yes, we've seen their signatures in particle accelerators.

Do you agree that gluons represents a pure energy?

There's no such thing as "pure energy". Energy is a property of physical entities,, not a physical entity unto itself.

If the gluons is an Energy, than do you agree that the Atom represents a cell of Energy?

Atoms are more than just energy.

Hence, if you wish to creat a new proton you must have the requested quarks + the requested energy to set the gluons.
Please remember - the mass contribution of the gluons to the proton is more than 900 MeV/c^2. while all the quarks is a proton contribute about 9 MeV/c^2. (less than 1% from the proton).
Therefore, if a gluons isn't a particle and before the BBT there were only particles, how can we dream that the BBT can create even one atom without the gluons?
Is there any possibility for a bang (even if we call it big bang) to create gluons?
If it can't create gluons, how it can create an Atom?

Protons can be created as a product of pair production in extreme gravitational environments like those at a black hole's event horizon. An antiproton has to be created at the same time due to conservation laws. By the way, gluons are automatically created by quarks as a part of their strong nuclear field. If you have quarks, you already have gluons.

If the BBT doesn't add energy to the existed articles (that were there before the bang), how it could create Atoms?

Pair production, as I pointed out before. That gives you both protons and electrons to work with.

Don't you agree that the accretion disc around the SMBH is the only place in the whole Universe where the energy of the magnetic/electric power + Temp (10^9) + Velocity (0.3c) + pressure is high enough to add the gluons to the quarks in order to form new proton?

No, because quarks already have gluons.

Do you believe that the Big Bang can create those kinds of energy/power/conditions (especially the magnetic/electric power)?

The Big Bang was orders of magnitude hotter and more energetic than any other event in the universe.

Do you agree that if "Neutron Stars/Pulsars have huge magnetic fields, that are also thought to be able to produce particles from the vacuum of space" than the SMBH should also be able to produce articles (especially quarks) at the vacuum of space in the innermost of the accretion disc?

I'm not sure that neutron stars can actually do that, but if so, then part of the neutron star's mass/energy is depleted in the process of creating those particles.

How the BBT can add that gluons without having those key requested elements?
How the BBT can't set even one proton if the gluons is not a particle?

I've already pointed out why both of these assumptions are wrong.

Therefore, we clearly see mainly particles at the innermost ring of the accretion disc, while at the outermost side of the accretion ring we clearly see molecular.
That proves that the new born particles are drifted outwards as they orbit at ultra high velocity (of over than 0.3 c).

No, it does not.

Do you agree that as they drift outwards they become part of the plasma in the accretion disc, and directly affected by the ultra magnetic/electric power?

No, because they don't drift outward.

So, do you agree that the power/temp (10^9)/density/peruse at the accretion disc is the only place in the whole universe that can add the gluons to the quarks and form new proton and new atom?

No, because quarks already have gluons regardless of where they are or what environment they are in. You can't add gluons to quarks any more than you can add electric fields to electrons: they already have them.

It is also not logical that while more than 99% of the mass in the plasma is ejected out from the accretion disc, a mass from outside will try to get in. The same power that ejects all of that mass (over than 99%) from the accretion disc should prevent from any molecular to get in!!!

So what happens when all of the mass/energy of the disk is depleted? The disk would disappear and the magnetic field would vanish.

Why the SMBH can't generate magnetic field?
Do we have prove for that?
Do we know the real process at the SMBH?

In order for a black hole to have a magnetic field, it must be both electrically-charged and spinning. The black hole should indeed spin, but it should not be electrically-charged. The reason for this is two-fold. Firstly, the very nature of the electromagnetic force means that positive and negative charges seek each other out and form neutral bodies. So almost all of the matter around a black hole would already be neutral. Secondly, an electrically-charged black hole would preferentially attracted oppositely-charged matter that would neutralize it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Protons can be created as a product of pair production in extreme gravitational environments like those at a black hole's event horizon. An antiproton has to be created at the same time due to conservation laws. By the way, gluons are automatically created by quarks as a part of their strong nuclear field. If you have quarks, you already have gluons.

Thanks Kryptid
I couldn't ask for a better answer!!!
You have just solved several main questions:
1. How the SMBH increases its mass?
2. Why all the matter from the accretion disc is ejected outwards?
3. Why the SMBH doesn't need to eat any matter from the nearby aria?

Based on your answer:
"Protons can be created as a product of pair production in extreme gravitational environments like those at a black hole's event horizon"
So, based on your reply, Proton and Antiproton could be created at the same moment at the SMBH's event horizon.
I would like to compare those two new born particles to a twin star that orbit around a BH.
We know that if one star is falling in, the other one is ejected outwards.
In the same token, if the Antiproton will fell into the SMBH, the Proton should be drifted outwards.
The "falling in" activity of the Antiproton, have solved the problems.
In one hand it increases the mass of the SMBH, while it the other hand it push the Proton outwards.
Therefore, we clearly see that more than 99% of the mass in the plasma in the accretion disc is ejected outwards.
Hence, there is no need for any matter from outside the disc to drift inwards.
If that scenario is correct, it might also answer your following remark about the magnetic field:

In order for a black hole to have a magnetic field, it must be both electrically-charged and spinning. The black hole should indeed spin, but it should not be electrically-charged. The reason for this is two-fold. Firstly, the very nature of the electromagnetic force means that positive and negative charges seek each other out and form neutral bodies. So almost all of the matter around a black hole would already be neutral. Secondly, an electrically-charged black hole would preferentially attracted oppositely-charged matter that would neutralize it.

So you claim that:
"an electrically-charged black hole would preferentially attracted oppositely-charged matter that would neutralize it"
So, as the SMBH is made out of Antipositron, we need to call it "A NEGATIVLY electrically-charged SMBH".
You claim that: "an electrically-charged black hole would preferentially attracted oppositely-charged matter that would neutralize it"
In one of the articles about the BBT that I have read it was stated that about 99% of the Protons/Antiprotons that had been created by the BBT have probably eliminated each other at the same moment of their creation.
However, based on the NEGATIVLY electrically-charged SMBH, the story is totally different:
At the same moment that the new born Antipositron & Proton is created the "NEGATIVLY electrically-charged SMBH" would preferentially attracted NEGATIVLY-charged matter that would neutralize it (which is the Antiproton), while the Proton will be ejected outwards.
Therefore, there is no time for the Antiproton & proton to eliminate each other at the moment of their creation.
At the same moment that they are created they also are separated by the mighty power of the "NEGATIVLY electrically-charged SMBH".
Hence, the SMBH ejects all protons that it had created to our galaxy/universe, while all Antiprotons is used as its real food.

So, the SMBH sets all the activity.
It forms new Antiproton and New Proton at the same moment.
It eats the Antiproton and therefore it increases its mass constantly during the mass creation activity.
Actually, on any new born Proton that it contributes to our Universe, it eats one equivalent Antiproton.
Hence, the mass of the SMBH indicates the total Antiproton mass that it have consumed during its life time frame.
In the same token that mass also represents the total proton production that it contributes to the Galaxy/Universe.
Therefore, we can easily calculate the total Sun mass that it had been created during his life time.

Do you agree with that?

[Kryptid]

Based on your answer:
"Protons can be created as a product of pair production in extreme gravitational environments like those at a black hole's event horizon"
So, based on your reply, Proton and Antiproton could be created at the same moment at the SMBH's event horizon.
I would like to compare those two new born particles to a twin star that orbit around a BH.
We know that if one star is falling in, while the other one is ejected outwards.
In the same token, if the Antiproton will fell into the SMBH, the Proton should be drifted outwards.
The "falling in" activity of the Antiproton, have solved the problems.
In one hand it increases the mass of the SMBH, while it the other hand it push the Proton outwards.
Therefore, we clearly see that more than 99% of the mass in the plasma in the accretion disc is ejected outwards.
Hence, there is no need for any matter from outside the disc to drift inwards.
If that scenario is correct, it might also answer your following remark about the magnetic field:

You have it all wrong.

(1) Pair production at a black hole's even horizon causes the black hole to lose mass. This is Hawking radiation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

(2) Supermassive black holes don't even generate proton-antiproton pairs. The space-time curvature at the event horizon is far too gentle for that. Counterintuitively, smaller black holes release more energetic radiation than larger ones. Protons are too heavy to be created by a supermassive black hole. Instead, those black holes can only create very, very weak photons (with a temperature much lower than that of the cosmic microwave background). Only very small black holes could create proton-antiproton pairs.

At the same moment that the new born Antipositron & Proton is created the "NEGATIVLY electrically-charged SMBH" would preferentially attracted NEGATIVLY-charged matter that would neutralize it (which is the Antiproton), while the Proton will be ejected outwards.

You have it backwards. Negative charges attract positive charges. If the black hole was negative, it would preferentially attract protons, not antiprotons. I already pointed out to you why an electrically-charged black hole is very unlikely to occur in nature and why it would quickly neutralize itself if it did occur.

It eats the Antiproton and therefore it increases its mass constantly during the mass creation activity.

No it doesn't. You're trying to break the law of conservation of mass again. I already pointed out to you that Hawking radiation decreases a black hole's mass, not increase it.

Do you agree with that?

No. Please fix your misconceptions before continuing.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

(1) Pair production at a black hole's even horizon causes the black hole to lose mass. This is Hawking radiation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Thanks for the great article
It is stated:
"Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining that particle–antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[9] As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole.[10]
Let's start with the following message:
"This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles."
Do you agree that it is stated that the gravitational power of the black hole is boosted virtual particles into real particles?
Therefore, the gravity power of the BH itself has the ability to create new real particles?
This actually proves your following statement:

Protons can be created as a product of pair production in extreme gravitational environments like those at a black hole's event horizon.

So, you agree that BH can generate new particles as Proton and Antiproton due to its simple gravity force.
However, why do you claim that the space-time curvature at the event horizon of the SMBH is much more gentle than the one at a BH?
How could it be that Protons are too heavy to be created by a suppermassive black hole but they are not too heavy for the BH?
Would you kindly prove it?
Would you also kindly explain what is so unique in those special very small black holes that only them could create proton-antiproton pairs.
Hawking doesn't give any special information about small BH or SMBH.

In any case, most of us consider that gravity comes for free.
Therefore, if the gravity of a BH could create proton-antiproton pairs, than why it doesn't come for free?
Based on Hawking radiation "the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole."
If that is correct, than as the BH decreases its mass due to the creation activity, it actually decreases also its gravity.
Hence, please let me know if you agree with the following:
1. BH gravity creates new particle. Therefore:
2. BH mass is reduces. Therefore:
3. Gravity is reduces.
So, Hawking proved/assumed that gravity doesn't come for free.
If it doesn't come for free for mass creation, than why it comes for free for Sun/Earth orbit system.
Why the Sun doesn't need to lose mass (or gravity) due to this orbital activity?
Why the gravity reduction is only applicable for BH during new particle creation activity?
Please remember - Those new particles had been created directly from the gravity that boosted virtual particles.
So, the BH doesn't take any mass from itself to create those new particles

[Kryptid]

Do you agree that it is stated that the gravitational power of the black hole is boosted virtual particles into real particles?

I've recently come to the knowledge that virtual particles aren't an actual thing, but are just modeling tools that are useful in the mathematics of quantum mechanics. Regardless, the idea of virtual particles being changed into real particles is still probably good enough to visualize the process, so I'll tentatively agree.

Therefore, the gravity power of the BH itself has the ability to create new real particles?

It isn't just gravity that is doing it, it is specifically the tidal forces caused by gravity. To be more specific, it is the difference between the force of gravity at different distances from the event horizon that allow the process to work. The tidal forces "pull" the particle-antiparticle pairs apart. The stronger the tidal forces, the faster particle-antiparticle pairs can be separated and the faster the hole shrinks.

So, you agree that BH can generate new particles as Proton and Antiproton due to its simple gravity force.

Only if the tidal forces are strong enough at the event horizon. In other words, only if the black hole is small enough.

However, why do you claim that the space-time curvature at the event horizon of the SMBH is much more gentle than the one at a BH?
How could it be that Protons are too heavy to be created by a suppermassive black hole but they are not too heavy for the BH?
Would you kindly prove it?
Would you also kindly explain what is so unique in those special very small black holes that only them could create proton-antiproton pairs.

The tidal forces at the event horizon of a super-massive black hole are lower because the radius of that black hole is larger. Let's use two examples to illustrate this point. We start off with a very small black hole with an event horizon radius of 1 centimeter. How does the gravitational force right at the event horizon compare to the gravitational force 1 centimeter away from the event horizon? Right at the event horizon, the distance to the singularity is 1 centimeter, whereas 1 centimeter away from from the event horizon, the singularity is 2 centimeters away. Since gravity follows the inverse square law, we know that a doubling of distance causes the acceleration due to gravity to be divided by 4. So over that tiny distance of 1 centimeter, the gravitational force is different by a factor of 400%.

Let's compare this to a much larger black hole that is 1 kilometer in radius. What is the difference in gravitational strength right at its event horizon and 1 centimeter away from the horizon? Since 1 centimeter is 10,000 times shorter than a kilometer, then we are comparing total distances from the singularity of 1 kilometer and 1.00001 kilometers. What is the difference in gravitational acceleration between these two distances? It would be 1.00001 squared, or 1.00002. That means the gravitational acceleration right at the event horizon is only 0.002% stronger than what it is 1 centimeter away from the horizon.

So the small black hole has tidal forces that are much, much stronger at the horizon than the large black hole.

The more massive the subatomic particles, the more energy (and therefore tidal force) is needed to "boost" them into existence. Photons can have arbitrarily low mass/energy, so black holes can always create photons as Hawking radiation regardless of how weak the tidal forces are. Protons, on the other hand, are pretty heavy (almost 2,000 times heavier than electrons) and so require large amounts of energy (or very strong tidal forces) to generate. Only small black holes have the needed tidal forces to create them.

In any case, most of us consider that gravity comes for free.
Therefore, if the gravity of a BH could create proton-antiproton pairs, than why it doesn't come for free?
Based on Hawking radiation "the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole."
If that is correct, than as the BH decreases its mass due to the creation activity, it actually decreases also its gravity.
Hence, please let me know if you agree with the following:
1. BH gravity creates new particle. Therefore:
2. BH mass is reduces. Therefore:
3. Gravity is reduces.
So, Hawking proved/assumed that gravity doesn't come for free.
If it doesn't come for free for mass creation, than why it comes for free for Sun/Earth orbit system.
Why the Sun doesn't need to lose mass (or gravity) due to this orbital activity?
Why the gravity reduction is only applicable for BH during new particle creation activity?
Please remember - Those new particles had been created directly from the gravity that boosted virtual particles.
So, the BH doesn't take any mass from itself to create those new particles

Gravity does come for "free" for all objects with mass, even black holes. Remember, mass is not vanishing into nothingness when a black hole evaporates due to Hawking radiation. What is occurring is that mass is moving out of the black hole and being sent into the universe at large in the form of radiation. That radiation has mass/energy that is equal to the mass/energy lost by the black hole and as such also has gravity equal to the amount of gravity lost by the hole.

The reason that the Sun and Earth don't emit Hawking radiation is because they don't have event horizons that can capture one member of the particle pair. So any virtual particle-antiparticle pairs popping up around them can annihilate and return to the vacuum.

The reason that the black hole's mass decreases when Hawking radiation is a bit harder to understand. It is often said that the member of the particle pair that escapes into the universe has positive mass/energy, while the particle that is consumed by the black hole has negative mass/energy. When that negative mass is added to the positive mass of the hole, it causes the hole to lose total mass. It isn't quite that simple, though, as the following description of the process explains: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30597/black-holes-and-positive-negative-energy-particles/30601#30601

Halc has a better handle on relativity than I do, so perhaps he can chime in on how the reference frames can make one member of the particle pair look like it has negative energy. Alternatively, maybe I'll go look at my black hole book later and find relevant quotes about this matter.

[Halc]

Therefore, the gravity power of the BH itself has the ability to create new real particles?

It isn't just gravity that is doing it, it is specifically the tidal forces caused by gravity. To be more specific, it is the difference between the force of gravity at different distances from the event horizon that allow the process to work. The tidal forces "pull" the particle-antiparticle pairs apart. The stronger the tidal forces, the faster particle-antiparticle pairs can be separated and the faster the hole shrinks.

Like to add that tidal forces near a small mass is greater than that near a large mass, so the tidal forces near a neutron star will kill you, despite the gravitational force on you being a fraction of that near the event horizon of a black hole.  The tidal force of a small black hole (like Jupiter mass) will be far worse, and that near the largest black holes not particularly bothersome.

I imagine a black hole the mass of say an elephant might be able to produce a proton.  I don't know.  I'm guessing.  I know it's small.

1. BH gravity creates new particle. Therefore:
2. BH mass is reduces. Therefore:
3. Gravity is reduces.

Only if the particle radiates away does the mass reduce.  The vast majority of them fall immediately back in, resulting in no mass change.

If it doesn't come for free for mass creation, than why it comes for free for Sun/Earth orbit system.
Why the Sun doesn't need to lose mass (or gravity) due to this orbital activity?

Hawking radiation has nothing to do with orbital activity.  The sun very much does radiate away mass at billions the rate that the SMBH does, and yes, it loses mass steadily as it does so.  Most of the energy on Earth comes from a tiny fraction of that radiated energy that manages to hit us and stick for a while.  Yes, the sun's gravity reduces accordingly as this goes on.

The reason that the Sun and Earth don't emit Hawking radiation is because they don't have event horizons that can capture one member of the particle pair.

Or because they don't have significant tidal fields anywhere.

Halc has a better handle on relativity than I do, so perhaps he can chime in on how the reference frames can make one member of the particle pair look like it has negative energy.

Sorry, I think one needs to be more of a particle physicist than a relativity guy to describe clearly how all that works.  I'd muck it up.  The stack exchange guys often put out some top rate answers.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks

It isn't just gravity that is doing it, it is specifically the tidal forces caused by gravity. To be more specific, it is the difference between the force of gravity at different distances from the event horizon that allow the process to work.

In all the articles that I have found, it is specifically stated about the gravity that is needed to boost the virtual particle into real particle.
I couldn't find even one word about the tidal with related to the creation on new particles around a BH or SMBH.
So, why do you advice that it is tidal?
Actually, it seems to me that you discuss about simple gravity forces at different distances: "it is the difference between the force of gravity at different distances from the event horizon".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
"In celestial mechanics, the expression tidal force can refer to a situation in which a body or material (for example, tidal water) is mainly under the gravitational influence of a second body (for example, the Earth), but is also perturbed by the gravitational effects of a third body (for example, the Moon)."
In our example there are no second & Third bodies. It is just the gravity impact of the BH on the virtual particles.
So, why do you call it Tidal? Is there a third body?
Why not a simple gravity force.
Don't you agree that the meaning of gravity force is different force at different distance?
So, I don't understand why you insist on tidal.

The reason that the black hole's mass decreases when Hawking radiation is a bit harder to understand. It is often said that the member of the particle pair that escapes into the universe has positive mass/energy, while the particle that is consumed by the black hole has negative mass/energy. When that negative mass is added to the positive mass of the hole, it causes the hole to lose total mass. It isn't quite that simple, though, as the following description of the process explains: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30597/black-holes-and-positive-negative-energy-particles/30601#30601

So we agree by now that due to the BH gravity force (you can call it tidal if you wish) two identical particles with negative polarities to each other (one negative and one positive) are popped up.
As the negative particle is falling into the BH, the positive is ejected outwards.
If the BH is made out of positive particles than the negative particles that fall in actually decrease the total mass of the BH. That is very clear.
However, if the BH is made out of negative particle, than the negative particle that falls in must increase the BH mass.
Do you agree with that?
Therefore, it is a severe mistake to assume that under any condition the BH should disappear.
We have to say that the BH might disappear just if the polarity of the falling particle is the opposite to the polarity of that BH.

The tidal forces "pull" the particle-antiparticle pairs apart. The stronger the tidal forces, the faster particle-antiparticle pairs can be separated and the faster the hole shrinks.

Can you please explain how the Tidal can "pull" the particle-antiparticle pairs apart?
Tidal is gravity force.
Why the gravity will have different effect on particle with different polarity.
Don't you agree that it should affect both partials at the same impact?
Do we know about gravity with negative polarity?
We know what is the meaning of negative or positive voltage, while there is no meaning of negative or positive gravity.
Therefore, if we wish to pull apart two particles (one negative and one positive) don't you agree that we MUST set them under electric/magnetic field?
So, do you agree that Tidal (or any sort of gravity force) can convert the virtual particles into real particles, but it can't separate them.
Do you agree that without a direct impact of electric/magnetic field they might immediately merge again and disappear forever?
Therefore, how we can discuss about particle creation while magnetic/electric field doesn't involve in the process?

The tidal forces at the event horizon of a super-massive black hole are lower because the radius of that black hole is larger. Let's use two examples to illustrate this point. We start off with a very small black hole with an event horizon radius of 1 centimeter. How does the gravitational force right at the event horizon compare to the gravitational force 1 centimeter away from the event horizon? Right at the event horizon, the distance to the singularity is 1 centimeter, whereas 1 centimeter away from from the event horizon, the singularity is 2 centimeters away. Since gravity follows the inverse square law, we know that a doubling of distance causes the acceleration due to gravity to be divided by 4. So over that tiny distance of 1 centimeter, the gravitational force is different by a factor of 400%.

I imagine a black hole the mass of say an elephant might be able to produce a proton.  I don't know.  I'm guessing.  I know it's small.

Thanks for the explanation. However, I really don't understand how could it be that a SMBH with estimated mass of Million BH, has less power than a BH with a size of an elephant???
Let me give you other example:
If I will tell you that the thrust of the jet 747 is less than a bicycle- would you believe me?
In order to prove it, I will place one person on the bicycle while other person will stay at a distance of 1 km from the 747.
Which one will get higher trust?
Is that a correct way to verify the trust?
In the same way it seems to me that you do not evaluate correctly the impact of the SMBH vs a BH.
The other issue is orbital velocity.
It seems to me that inorder to convert a virtual particles into real particle, you need to set them at an Ultra high velocity.
you even claim that:

The more massive the subatomic particles, the more energy (and therefore tidal force) is needed to "boost" them into existence

Hence, we must boost the particles in order to create them.
The meaning of boost is to give them a possibility to run at ultra high speed for a long enough distance. (I call that distance - Runway distance)
If you try to set any object at a very small orbital cycle, and try to run it at ultra velocity, the force outwards should be stronger as the cycle is shorter.
Therefore, the virtual particle will be ejected outwards from the event of horizon cycle before setting the whole Runway that is needed to form a real particle.

One last question:
Why are we so sure that the new particle creation is taking care only at the event horizon?
Why it couldn't be created even inwards to the event horizon and then imidiatly be separated by the electric/magnetic field.
If the field is strong enough - why it can't eject the new born particle even if the particle had been created deep into the event horizon radius?

[Kryptid]

"In celestial mechanics, the expression tidal force can refer to a situation in which a body or material (for example, tidal water) is mainly under the gravitational influence of a second body (for example, the Earth), but is also perturbed by the gravitational effects of a third body (for example, the Moon)."
In our example there are no second & Third bodies. It is just the gravity impact of the BH on the virtual particles.
So, why do you call it Tidal? Is there a third body?

You missed the very first sentence of that article: "The tidal force is a force that stretches a body towards and away from the center of mass of another body due to a gradient (difference in strength) in gravitational field from the other body". That gradient in gravitational force is what I'm talking about.

In all the articles that I have found, it is specifically stated about the gravity that is needed to boost the virtual particle into real particle.
I couldn't find even one word about the tidal with related to the creation on new particles around a BH or SMBH.
So, why do you advice that it is tidal?
Actually, it seems to me that you discuss about simple gravity forces at different distances: "it is the difference between the force of gravity at different distances from the event horizon".

Perhaps you haven't found any, but I have a book that mentions it. Here is a quote from Black Holes & Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy by Kip S. Thorne:

Tidal gravity near the horizon is very strong; it pulls the virtual photons apart with a huge force, thereby feeding great energy into them, as seen by the infalling observer who is halfway between the photons. The increase in photon energy is sufficient, by the time the photons are a quarter of a horizon circumference apart, to convert them into real long-lived photons (right half of Figure 12.2), and have enough energy left over to give back to the neighboring, negative-energy regions of space. The photons, now real, are liberated from each other. One is inside the horizon and lost forever from the external Universe. The other escape from the hole, carrying away the energy (that is, the mass) that the hole's tidal gravity gave to it. The hole, with its mass reduced, shrinks a bit.

I've uploaded figured 12.2 from the book to illustrate this:


BlackHoleParticles.jpg (97.02 kB . 573x434 - viewed 3997 times)

So we agree by now that due to the BH gravity force (you can call it tidal if you wish) two identical particles with negative polarities to each other (one negative and one positive) are popped up.
As the negative particle is falling into the BH, the positive is ejected outwards.
If the BH is made out of positive particles than the negative particles that fall in actually decrease the total mass of the BH. That is very clear.
However, if the BH is made out of negative particle, than the negative particle that falls in must increase the BH mass.
Do you agree with that?
Therefore, it is a severe mistake to assume that under any condition the BH should disappear.
We have to say that the BH might disappear just if the polarity of the falling particle is the opposite to the polarity of that BH.

Black holes are always made from matter with positive mass, like stars and clouds of gas.

Can you please explain how the Tidal can "pull" the particle-antiparticle pairs apart?

The same way the tidal forces cause spaghettification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification

Why the gravity will have different effect on particle with different polarity.

It doesn't. The difference is caused by the particles being different distances from the singularity.

Don't you agree that it should affect both partials at the same impact?

It affects them by different amounts because they are different distances from the horizon.

Do we know about gravity with negative polarity?
We know what is the meaning of negative or positive voltage, while there is no meaning of negative or positive gravity.

No, but negative gravity is neither required nor even mentioned in this process.

Therefore, if we wish to pull apart two particles (one negative and one positive) don't you agree that we MUST set them under electric/magnetic field?

No. Particles that don't even respond to electromagnetic fields can be pulled apart by these tidal forces, so its irrelevant.

So, do you agree that Tidal (or any sort of gravity force) can convert the virtual particles into real particles, but it can't separate them.

No, I don't agree with this. We've seen objects separated by tidal forces before. Jupiter's tidal gravity pulled apart comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 back in 1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9

Thanks for the explanation. However, I really don't understand how could it be that a SMBH with estimated mass of Million BH, has less power than a BH with a size of an elephant???
Let me give you other example:
If I will tell you that the thrust of the jet 747 is less than a bicycle- would you believe me?
In order to prove it, I will place one person on the bicycle while other person will stay at a distance of 1 km from the 747.
Which one will get higher trust?
Is that a correct way to verify the trust?

You are equivocating two different concepts: energy and power. Just because an entity has more energy does not automatically mean that it has more power. The tidal forces at a black hole's event horizon are what determines the rate that it radiates particles. For a large black hole, those tidal forces are smaller, so the hole radiates more weakly.

Hence, we must boost the particles in order to create them.
The meaning of boost is to give them a possibility to run at ultra high speed for a long enough distance. (I call that distance - Runway distance)
If you try to set any object at a very small orbital cycle, and try to run it at ultra velocity, the force outwards should be stronger as the cycle is shorter.
Therefore, the virtual particle will be ejected outwards from the event of horizon cycle before setting the whole Runway that is needed to form a real particle.

You're taking the concept of a virtual particle too literally. They are convenient modelling tools. They don't actually exist and as such can't actually travel. It may be better to think of the tidal forces acting on the various fields around the black hole to create real particles from those fields.

Why are we so sure that the new particle creation is taking care only at the event horizon?
Why it couldn't be created even inwards to the event horizon and then imidiatly be separated by the electric/magnetic field.

I suppose it could happen inside of the event horizon, but it would have no effect on the black hole's mass. If it eats both the positive mass and the negative mass particle, then the total mass hasn't changed.

If the field is strong enough - why it can't eject the new born particle even if the particle had been created deep into the event horizon radius?

A particle would have to travel faster than light to escape an event horizon. Since relativity forbids that, no field can be strong enough to push it that fast.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

1. SMBH - matter or Antimatter

Black holes are always made from matter with positive mass, like stars and clouds of gas.

Why are you so sure about it?
Is it just a wishful thinking or is it based on real verifications and evidences?
Let me ask the following:
Let's assume that our SMBH is made out of Antimatter.
Do you think that it would effect differently the galaxy with regards to a SMBH which is made out of matter?
Please explain the differences in the effects?

2. Different Tidal forces on new born particle (Negative & Positive)

Why the gravity will have different effect on particle with different polarity.
Don't you agree that it should affect both partials at the same impact?

It doesn't. The difference is caused by the particles being different distances from the singularity.
It affects them by different amounts because they are different distances from the horizon.

How could it be that the Negative particle will have a different distance from the Horizon comparing the positive particle on their moment of birth?
Do you agree that at this moment of birth, the distance between the Negative particle to the positive is less than a Pico mm?
So, how that very short distance could set a different tidal forces?
What is the minimum requested distance between the two in order for the tidal to take its impact?
How the BH split them to that minimum distance request?
Why they don't eliminate each other at the moment of birth?
How do we know that always the negative particle is inwards to the Horizon, while the positive is outwards - on their birth moment?
Do you agree that based on statistics, the positive particle could be sometimes inwards and sometimes outwards?
If the positive particle is inwards (while the negative is outwards), do you estimate that the BH will be able to change their locations? How?
What might be the outcome if Antiproton is ejected outwards, while the proton is falling inwards?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks Halc

Antimatter still constitutes positive mass/energy.  A black hole is made of mass, period.  It isn't matter or antimatter anymore.

So, the gravity impact of a BH with only Antimatter is identical to a BH with only matter (as long as they have the same mass).
Therefore, do you agree that we can't know if our SMBH is made out of Matter or Antimatter?

The mathematics is pretty trivial.  A=Gm/r², so the question is the same as asking what is the minimum change in r to get a different value for A:  Anything nonzero.  Keep in mind that r here is the distance to the event horizon, not including the Schwarzschild radius, which isn't a real distance.

So, do do agree that the chance for in falling antimatter to the BH is identical for the chance of in falling matter?
Therefore, do you agree that there is a possibility that the BH could be made out of antimatter or matter?

Only small black holes create such things as particles with proper mass.  I imagine in such cases they might create as much antimatter as matter.

Please let me know if you agree with the following scenario:
If the BH is very small and is made out of antimatter, while the most in falling matter is antimatter, than -
Do you agree that this BH should increase its mass over time?
If so, don't you agree that over time this small BH might become SMBH?
If not - Why not?

I'm unaware of there being a conservation law that applies, especially given the obvious imbalance we see in the universe.

Do you mean the imbalance that we see between the matter and Antimatter in our Universe, as we actually only see matter, but we don't see any antimatter?
Therefore, in any particle creation activity - the total antimatter in the Universe should be identical to the total matter.
So, how can we explain that we only see matter while we don't see any antimatter?
Let's assume that you have to solve this enigma. What are you going to do?
I have an advice for this problem:
Let's set all the antimatter in big unseen barrels, while all the matter will be free outwards.
Don't you agree that there is a possibility that this is exactly the solution that our Universe had found?
If all the antimatter in the whole Universe is saved in the Billion over millions BH or SMBH barrels, than all the matter will be free to form stars planets and moons that we see.
Therefore - do you agree that Antimatter SMBH/BH can solve the enigma of our Universe?
It eats Antimatter and ejects matter.

Therefore - after all, our SMBH isn't so bad eater.
For any proton that it ejects - it eats one antiproton.
Hence, as it ejects over than 99% of the matter in the accretion disc - it eats over than 99% of the antimatter that were a byproduct of those new particles creation in that accretion disc.

So simple solution – for so difficult question.

[Kryptid]

Why are you so sure about it?
Is it just a wishful thinking or is it based on real verifications and evidences?

Because all matter that has ever been observed in the Universe is made of matter with a positive mass. The particle falling into the black hole ends up with negative momentum, and therefore negative energy, because of the weirdness of space and time within the black hole. I don't fully understand it, but Stephen Hawking (and the majority of physicists who have analyzed his work) agree that it is sensible in the framework of relativity.

Let's assume that our SMBH is made out of Antimatter.
Do you think that it would effect differently the galaxy with regards to a SMBH which is made out of matter?
Please explain the differences in the effects?

A black hole made from antimatter would be identical to one made out of matter. This is called the "no-hair theorem", which proposes that black holes are extremely simple objects which possess only a handful of distinct properties, such as electric charge, mass, angular momentum and linear momentum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

How could it be that the Negative particle will have a different distance from the Horizon comparing the positive particle on their moment of birth?

It wouldn't always, but on those particular occasions where it does, it can result in Hawking radiation. In other cases, the particle pair can self-annihilate and disappear into the vacuum again.

Do you agree that at this moment of birth, the distance between the Negative particle to the positive is less than a Pico mm?

The distance probably varies a lot, in part depending on the wavelengths of the particles in question.

So, how that very short distance could set a different tidal forces?

Any distance has tidal forces involved. It's just weaker when those distances are shorter. Hence why very small black holes with very strong tidal forces are needed to produce short-wave length (and therefore high energy) particles.

What is the minimum requested distance between the two in order for the tidal to take its impact?

Any distance will have tidal forces of some amount. I don't know the specific numbers for given particles, though.

How the BH split them to that minimum distance request?

With tidal forces, the same as I've been saying this whole time.

Why they don't eliminate each other at the moment of birth?

Many of them probably do.

How do we know that always the negative particle is inwards to the Horizon, while the positive is outwards - on their birth moment?
Do you agree that based on statistics, the positive particle could be sometimes inwards and sometimes outwards?
If the positive particle is inwards (while the negative is outwards), do you estimate that the BH will be able to change their locations? How?

The interior geometry of the black hole is what makes that particular particle negative in the first place, so you can't have the opposite scenario.

What might be the outcome if Antiproton is ejected outwards, while the proton is falling inwards?

You would indeed expect antiprotons to be emitted at the same rate as protons, but nothing of particular note would happen to the black hole because black holes have no "hair".

Therefore, do you agree that we can't know if our SMBH is made out of Matter or Antimatter?

Black holes are identical whether they formed from an object made of matter or antimatter.

[Halc]

So, the gravity impact of a BH with only Antimatter is identical to a BH with only matter (as long as they have the same mass).
Therefore, do you agree that we can't know if our SMBH is made out of Matter or Antimatter?

It isn't a meaningful distinction to describe the mass of a black hole being matter or antimatter.  The mass isn't in the form of material that has properties like that.
So, yes, black holes created by dumping matter into a place, or antimatter, or a mixture, all behave identically.

So, do do agree that the chance for in falling antimatter to the BH is identical for the chance of in falling matter?

Not necessarily.  In-falling antimatter is likely to hit matter in the accretion disk along the way and get annihilated.

Therefore, do you agree that there is a possibility that the BH could be made out of antimatter or matter?

They're 'made out of' neither.  A neutron star can be made out of one or the other, but not a black hole.  The matter might be degenerate, but no so degenerate that it isn't still matter.

Please let me know if you agree with the following scenario:
If the BH is very small and is made out of antimatter, while the most in falling matter is antimatter, than -
Do you agree that this BH should increase its mass over time?

I don't agree that it is made out of anything.  Yes, if you dump mass in, its mass increases.

If so, don't you agree that over time this small BH might become SMBH?
If not - Why not?

If you dump enough mass in, it will cross whatever you think is the threshold for being 'super massive'.

I'm unaware of there being a conservation law that applies, especially given the obvious imbalance we see in the universe.

Do you mean the imbalance that we see between the matter and Antimatter in our Universe, as we actually only see matter, but we don't see any antimatter?

Yes

Therefore, in any particle creation activity - the total antimatter in the Universe should be identical to the total matter.

No.  I said there seems to be no such law.

I have an advice for this problem:
Let's set all the antimatter in big unseen barrels, while all the matter will be free outwards.
Don't you agree that there is a possibility that this is exactly the solution that our Universe had found?

How did it get sorted like that?  Sounds like antimatter behaves differently than matter, which contradicts the symmetry of it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I have an advice for this problem:
Let's set all the antimatter in big unseen barrels, while all the matter will be free outwards.
Don't you agree that there is a possibility that this is exactly the solution that our Universe had found?

How did it get sorted like that?  Sounds like antimatter behaves differently than matter, which contradicts the symmetry of it.

Yes, that is an important question.
However, let's start with the following simple question - How did a new born pair particle get sorted like that?
In order to understand that let's focus on the meaning/creation of pair particle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton. Pair production often refers specifically to a photon creating an electron–positron pair near a nucleus. For pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction must be above a threshold of at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles, and the situation must conserve both energy and momentum.[1] "
So, let's focus on electron and a positron:
For the creation we "MUST conserve both energy and momentum."- That is clear.
So, a BH should be able to create those pair.
What is the difference between the two:
https://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_positron_and_an_electron
"The fact that the electron and positron are matter and anti-matter, and that they have a charge of -1 and +1 respectively are the major differences. A positron is an electron's anti-particle, and when the electron and positron come in contact with each other to combine, they annihilate each other in a process called electron-positron annihilation."
So, "they have a charge of -1 and +1 respectively."
However, if they stay together they will annihilate each other in a process called electron-positron annihilation"
By now we already know that tidal can't do the job of separation as on the moment of creation they are located close to each other.
We must have a real external force to set the separation.
They only real power is - Magnetic Field!!!
If those electron and positron had been created under the impact of strong magnetic/electric field, the outcome of their charge of -1 and +1 must push them away from each other. (I assume that it is due to the Lorenz law trust).
therefore - if we see any activity of particle creation - it is clear that magnetic field must be there.
Without it - the new born pair will "annihilate each other in a process called electron-positron annihilation" on the same moment of the creation!
Do you agree with that?