[Dave Lev (OP)]

The outflow at the poles of the black hole obviously are, though. There is no reason that an inflow should be a jet.

Dear Kryptid
There is no outflow from the pole of the black hole.
This is a severe mistake.
The outflow is from the accretion disc itself.

Please look again at the Wind structure outflow from the accretion disc at the page before the last one:
http://phsites.technion.ac.il/talks/agn2017/Reeves-J.pdf
So, the matter is first ejected outwards from the accretion disc and at the plane of the accretion disc.
In the following article it is stated that it is due to magnetic field:
 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/milky-way-black-hole-jet/
"Jets arise because the black hole is spinning. As matter falls into the black hole, the matter’s magnetic field gets twisted and amplified by the black hole’s spin, and this pumped-up magnetic field launches material outward in the form of jets."
Therefore, the outflow from the SMBH is always from the accretion disc due to magnetic field.
However, due to the magnetic field lines, the matter is lifted upwards.
Again - we can see it in the presentation which I have offered.

So, let me ask you if you agree with the following:
1.The magnetic field launches material outward from the accretion disc and set the first stage of outflow?
2. The same magnetic field also Pushes this outflow in the direction of upwards/downwards with regards to the accretion disc plane?
3. As it boosted outwards (at almost 0.8c) due to the magnetic field lines it set the molecular jet stream that we see above and below the galactic disc. (this jet stream move directly above the pole)?
4. So, the jet stream outflow that we see above and below the accretion disc plane is a direct outcome from the impact of the magnetic field on the matter in the accretion disc?

If you agree with all the above;
I really can't understand why you constantly refuse to accept the following direct outcome:
This magnetic field is so strong that it can pull matter (including particles, atoms, molecular) from the accretion disc, than band them outwards and shoot them at a speed of 0.8 directly upwards above (or below) the pole of the SMBH.
If so,
1. How any sort of matter can fall into the accretion disc? Why the same mighty magnetic field that sets the outflow jets can't push outwards any matter that just think to fall into the accretion disc?
2. Why the same magnetic field can't pull particles from the event horizon of the SMBH?
Once you agree with that we have solved the enigma of the whole Universe.

[evan_au]

Please look again at the Wind structure outflow from the accretion disc at the page before the last one:
http://phsites.technion.ac.il/talks/agn2017/Reeves-J.pdf
So, the matter is first ejected outwards from the accretion disc and at the plane of the accretion disc.
In the following article it is stated that it is due to magnetic field:
 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/milky-way-black-hole-jet/
"Jets arise because the black hole is spinning. As matter falls into the black hole, the matter’s magnetic field gets twisted and amplified by the black hole’s spin, and this pumped-up magnetic field launches material outward in the form of jets."
Therefore, the outflow from the SMBH is always from the accretion disc due to magnetic field.
However, due to the magnetic field lines, the matter is lifted upwards.
Again - we can see it in the presentation which I have offered.

So, let me ask you if you agree with the following:
1.The magnetic field launches material outward from the accretion disc and set the first stage of outflow?
2. The same magnetic field also Pushes this outflow in the direction of upwards/downwards with regards to the accretion disc plane?
3. As it boosted outwards (at almost 0.8c) due to the magnetic field lines it set the molecular jet stream that we see above and below the galactic disc. (this jet stream move directly above the pole)?
4. So, the jet stream outflow that we see above and below the accretion disc plane is a direct outcome from the impact of the magnetic field on the matter in the accretion disc?

Fantastic description! Bravo!
- You have just described the operation of an accretion disk, its magnetic fields and generation of polar jets, as understood by current theories.
- It's a pity that you didn't post this 15 pages ago...

Now given that agreement, there is no need for the rest of your post, which presumes that matter can be extracted from beneath the event horizon of a black hole using magnetic fields.
- According to current theories, this can't be done
- According to current theories, the only thing that can come out of a SMBH event horizon is a tiny wisp of Hawking radiation, which is immeasurably small, even without the energetic maelstrom which is the nearby accretion disk.

[Kryptid]

Dear Kryptid
There is no outflow from the pole of the black hole.
This is a severe mistake.
The outflow is from the accretion disc itself.

Please look again at the Wind structure outflow from the accretion disc at the page before the last one:
http://phsites.technion.ac.il/talks/agn2017/Reeves-J.pdf

That particular website is about “disk winds”. It’s true that they originate from the accretion disk, but they are a different phenomenon from the polar jets. The word “jet” isn’t even in that document.

In the following article it is stated that it is due to magnetic field:
 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/milky-way-black-hole-jet/
"Jets arise because the black hole is spinning. As matter falls into the black hole, the matter’s magnetic field gets twisted and amplified by the black hole’s spin, and this pumped-up magnetic field launches material outward in the form of jets."
Therefore, the outflow from the SMBH is always from the accretion disc due to magnetic field.
However, due to the magnetic field lines, the matter is lifted upwards.
Again - we can see it in the presentation which I have offered.

Yes, all of that is true, but it isn’t related to disk winds. The polar jets are a different phenomenon. These are the jets from the poles that I am talking about: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/G/Galactic+Jets There is one on each side of the galaxy. The jets don’t literally come from the poles of the black hole, the accretion flow is just lifted along those particular axes.

So, let me ask you if you agree with the following:
1.The magnetic field launches material outward from the accretion disc and set the first stage of outflow?
2. The same magnetic field also Pushes this outflow in the direction of upwards/downwards with regards to the accretion disc plane?

For disk winds, yes.

3. As it boosted outwards (at almost 0.8c) due to the magnetic field lines it set the molecular jet stream that we see above and below the galactic disc. (this jet stream move directly above the pole)?

No, the polar jets are a different phenomenon (even though they also originate from the accretion disk and are propelled by magnetic fields).

4. So, the jet stream outflow that we see above and below the accretion disc plane is a direct outcome from the impact of the magnetic field on the matter in the accretion disc?

Yes.

1. How any sort of matter can fall into the accretion disc? Why the same mighty magnetic field that sets the outflow jets can't push outwards any matter that just think to fall into the accretion disc?

Because magnetic fields neither attract nor repel charged particles. The way that the particles interact with the field is strongly dependent upon their path relative to the field lines. Those moving up or down can continue to move up or down, but those moving directly at right angles to the field lines will only spin around the field lines without moving up or down significantly. This spin will cause the particle to lose energy, weakening the effect of the magnetic field on it and allowing it to fall further towards the black hole.

2. Why the same magnetic field can't pull particles from the event horizon of the SMBH?

Because magnetic fields can’t move things into the past. This has been explained to you many times before.

Once you agree with that we have solved the enigma of the whole Universe.

No we won’t, because your model violates conservation of mass/energy (a black hole cannot send mass/energy out in the Universe without losing mass/energy itself).

[Kryptid]

The jets are going to be aligned with the axis of rotation of the accretion disk, not the axis of the black hole itself.

Yes, that's true. I was making a simplified assumption.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The polar jets are a different phenomenon. These are the jets from the poles that I am talking about: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/G/Galactic+Jets There is one on each side of the galaxy. The jets don’t literally come from the poles of the black hole, the accretion flow is just lifted along those particular axes.

Thanks Kryptid
Do appreciate this great article.
It is stated:
"Another question troubling astronomers is what exactly are these jets made of? The modern consensus is that the main constituents are electrons and their anti-particle equivalent, positrons. These are thought to be produced by ‘pair-production’ close to the event horizon of the central black hole, and squirted out at almost light speed by the action of the combined magnetic fields."
So, our scientists estimates that there is a possibility for ‘pair-production’ close to the event horizon of the central black hole, and squirted out at almost light speed by the action of the combined magnetic fields.
That meets my expectations form the mighty magnetic fields.
So, why our scientists can justify those pair-production near the event of horizon that are squirted out by magnetic force, while it is forbidden for me to use the same identical idea?

[Kryptid]

So, why our scientists can justify those pair-production near the event of horizon that are squirted out by magnetic force, while it is forbidden for me to use the same identical idea?

Your idea wasn't identical. You were proposing that they come from within the event horizon.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Your idea wasn't identical. You were proposing that they come from within the event horizon.

Well, I really don't care about the distance between those new created pair production to the event horizon.
As long as they are squirted out at almost light speed by the action of the combined magnetic fields from the SMBH into the accretion disc - that is perfectly OK with me.

Not sure how that sources material for the jets since the positrons typically find another electron somewhere in the accretion disk and annihilate it, for a net zero gain of charged particles

It seems to me that our knowledge about the functionality of the accretion disc is quite poor.
In the accretion disc new arrival created partials which had been squirted out from the SMBH are converted into real Atoms and molecular.
Therefore, at the innermost accretion ring, we should see mainly those kind of new born particles.
However, as the particles are drifted outwards in the accretion disc, they are converted into atoms and molecular.
Finally, they are ejected outwards from the accretion disc and lifted upwards (or downwards) by the mighty magnetic fields and set the molecular jet stream.
There is an excellent reason for why the galaxy needs to create that jet stream.
Not all the particles have been converted into real atoms and molecular at the moment that they are ejected from the accretion disc.
Therefore, in the outflow from the accretion disc we should find particles, broken atoms, atoms and molecular.
If those  particles will be part of a new star it might create a very negative impact.
Somehow, those immature particles must be pushed away.
Therefore, the accretion outflow is boosted upwards into a molecular jet stream by the magnetic field.
The relatively heavy atoms and molecular are falling back to the galactic disc plane and are gathered into gas cloud in order to start the new star forming activity, while the immature particles are pushed away from the galaxy.
So, the molecular jet stream set the cleaning activity and push away the immature particles from the matter which should be used as the building blocks for any new star.

[Kryptid]

Well, I really don't care about the distance between those new created pair production to the event horizon.
As long as they are squirted out at almost light speed by the action of the combined magnetic fields from the SMBH into the accretion disc - that is perfectly OK with me.

The pair production happens in the accretion disk near the event horizon, where the temperatures are very, very high. Another example of such pair production is in "pair-instability supernova": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair-instability_supernova

Since the temperature of the material itself is what drives this, the energy and mass of the accretion disk is reduced by it when the pairs are blasted off into the jets. So you are still left with the conundrum of where the matter in the accretion disk comes from, since you don't allow it to come in from outside nor can it come out of the black hole because of the event horizon.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The pair production happens in the accretion disk near the event horizon, where the temperatures are very, very high

Dear Kryptid

The modern consensus is that the main constituents are electrons and their anti-particle equivalent, positrons. These are thought to be produced by ‘pair-production’ close to the event horizon of the central black hole, and squirted out at almost light speed by the action of the combined magnetic fields."

Our scientists specifically claim that the ‘pair-production’ are produced close to the event horizon of the central black hole.
Therefore, it is clear that the ‘pair-production’ have been produced outside the accretion disc.
Hence the pair- production activity itself has no effect on the energy and mass in the accretion disk.
However, as the pair- production are squirted out at almost light speed by the action of the combined magnetic fields and drift into the innermost ring of the accretion disc - the mass of the accretion disc is increasing.
In the accertion disc, those particales are transformed into real Atoms and Molecular. The main energy for that activity is coming from the same magnetic field. Therefore, in total the mass of the accretion disc is increasing due to the new arrival of the  pair- production and due to the transformation activity.
You claim:

Since the temperature of the material itself is what drives this, the energy and mass of the accretion disk is reduced by it when the pairs are blasted off into the jets

The pairs are blasted off into the jets by the power of the magnetic fields.
Hence, the energy and mass in the accretion disc is quite stable in the long run due to the balance between the inflow into the accretion disc of the new born pair- production  from the event horizon (or close to it) and their transformation activity into new atoms and molecular with regards to the total jet outflow from the accretion disc.
Don't you see that the game is over?
You have offered solid evidence to that theory.
Fron now on we must call it - Excretion disc.
Why don't we share our efforts in bringing the breakthrough information to the science community and mankind?
We need to get a reward for our discovery!!!

[Kryptid]

Therefore, it is clear that the ‘pair-production’ have been produced outside the accretion disc.

Not at all. Pair production is modeled as happening inside the accretion disk. There are other sources that state this:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/9/meta

Here, we use a self-consistent dynamical and radiative model to investigate pair production by γγ collisions in weakly radiative accretion flows around a black hole of mass M and accretion rate M.

http://cxc.harvard.edu/cdo/accr10/pres/moscibrodzka_monika.pdf:

For first time we compute non-equilibrium electron-positron pair production rates by γγ from turbulent accretion disk around spinning black hole

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117797000458:

The high pair creation rate during this state is indicated by the presence of a broad e−e+ annihilation line-like feature and needs the presence of a high temperature radiation field. We put forward a scenario in which the observed spectrum originates from the inner region of an accretion disk around a rapidly rotating black hole.

Hence the pair- production activity itself has no effect on the energy and mass in the accretion disk.

Yes it does, since the energy of the accretion disk is what allows them to be formed in the first place.

the mass of the accretion disc is increasing.

So where do you claim that this extra mass comes from? If the pairs aren't produced by the accretion disk, what are they produced by? Where does the energy necessary to create those pairs come from? Do you recognize that whatever source you choose must lose energy in the process of creating those pairs?

Don't you see that the game is over?

It was over as soon as you made the first post in this thread, because your model was wrong since the first post.

You have offered solid evidence to that theory.

I have offered nothing that shows the pairs are produced anywhere outside of the plasma around the black hole. Energy is required to produce particle pairs. That energy has to come from somewhere.

Fron now on we must call it - Excretion disc.

Non-sequitur.

Why don't we share our efforts in bringing the breakthrough information to the science community and mankind?
We need to get a reward for our discovery!!!

You haven't made any discoveries.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Therefore, it is clear that the ‘pair-production’ have been produced outside the accretion disc.

Not at all. Pair production is modeled as happening inside the accretion disk. There are other sources that state this:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/9/meta

In this article it is stated clearly that pair production is concentrated close to the event horizon, but not in the accretion disc:
"Electron-positron pairs may be produced near accreting black holes by a variety of physical processes"
"We have studied electron–positron pair production in black hole magnetospheres by γγ collisions."
"The pair production rates are calculated nearly ab initio within 40GM/c2 of the event horizon, using Monte Carlo methods."
"The main results of this work are the fitting formulae for the rate and spatial distribution of pair production in terms of m8 and $\dot{m}$ (Equation (26)) and in terms of m8, LX, and α (Equation (30)). These indicate that γγ pair production is concentrated close to the event horizon, and is sensitive to model parameters such as $\dot{m}$."
So, where do you see that Pair production is happening inside the accretion disk?

http://cxc.harvard.edu/cdo/accr10/pres/moscibrodzka_monika.pdf:
"For first time we compute non-equilibrium electron-positron pair production rates by γγ from turbulent accretion disk around spinning black hole"

In this model they discuss about "turbulent accretion disk around spinning black hole".
I don't think that they aim for the accretion disc.
Please look at the following article:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/9/meta
It is stated:
Our pair production rate simulations are based on a GRMHD time-dependent model of a magnetized disk around a spinning black hole.
Therefore, the real meaning of "turbulent accretion disk around spinning black hole" is "magnetized disk around a spinning black hole."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117797000458:

Quote
The high pair creation rate during this state is indicated by the presence of a broad e−e+ annihilation line-like feature and needs the presence of a high temperature radiation field. We put forward a scenario in which the observed spectrum originates from the inner region of an accretion disk around a rapidly rotating black hole.

In this article they don't discuss about the location of the pair production. They just speak about the the observed spectrum originates from the inner region of an accretion disk around a rapidly rotating black hole."
This is very interesting.
Actually as the pair production is drifted outwards, it must meet the inner region of the accretion disc.
Therefore, it is very interesting to understand what kind of spectrum they have observed and what can we learn from that.

Hence the pair- production activity itself has no effect on the energy and mass in the accretion disk.

Yes it does, since the energy of the accretion disk is what allows them to be formed in the first place.

Sorry, in most of the articles it is stated that the pair - production activity is NEAR the event horizon (and not in the accretion disc itself)

[Kryptid]

So, where do you see that Pair production is happening inside the accretion disk?

Here:

For first time we compute non-equilibrium electron-positron pair production rates by γγ from turbulent accretion disk around spinning black hole.

and here:

We put forward a scenario in which the observed spectrum originates from the inner region of an accretion disk around a rapidly rotating black hole.

I don't think that they aim for the accretion disc.

What do you mean when you say "aim" for the accretion disk?

Therefore, the real meaning of "turbulent accretion disk around spinning black hole" is "magnetized disk around a spinning black hole."

Which, in other words, is the accretion disk.

Sorry, in most of the articles it is stated that the pair - production activity is NEAR the event horizon (and not in the accretion disc itself)

You realize that "near the event horizon" and "in the accretion disk" are not mutually-exclusive locations, don't you?

[evan_au]

In this article it is stated clearly that pair production is concentrated close to the event horizon, but not in the accretion disc:
"Electron-positron pairs may be produced near accreting black holes by a variety of physical processes"
These indicate that γγ pair production is concentrated close to the event horizon
So, where do you see that Pair production is happening inside the accretion disk?

You do realise that as the matter in the accretion disk spirals closer to the black hole, most of it actually spirals right into the event horizon?
So there is no actual gap between the event horizon and the inner edge of the accretion disk?
So every time an article says "near a black hole event horizon", they actually mean that it happens within, or on the edges of, the accretion disk.

Fron now on we must call it - Excretion disc.

According to current computer models, about 90% of the matter in the accretion disk falls into the black hole, and only around 10% goes into the polar jets. So retaining the term "accretion disk" is 900% more accurate than changing it to "excretion disk".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You realize that "near the event horizon" and "in the accretion disk" are not mutually-exclusive locations, don't you?

So every time an article says "near a black hole event horizon", they actually mean that it happens within, or on the edges of, the accretion disk.

Are you both sure about it?
If I recall correctly, you (or Halc) have stated that there is no possibly that the pair-production will take place at the accretion disc, as special conditions are needed for the particles creation. I have got the impression from you that the Pair-production activity must take place even below the event horizon.
Now, suddenly, you claim that the pair-production can be created in the accretion disc, high above the event horizon.
Thanks for that Great news.
If new particles can be created at the accretion disc, than why do I need to find a solution how to squirt out the new particles from the event horizon (or close to it)?
I don't need any more to call the magnetic field for help. Therefore, the following explanation is not needed:
"The modern consensus is that the main constituents are electrons and their anti-particle equivalent, positrons. These are thought to be produced by ‘pair-production’ close to the event horizon of the central black hole, and squirted out at almost light speed by the action of the combined magnetic fields."
Now you agree that new particle are created at the accretion disc. Therefore, the solution is as follow:
New particle are created at the innermost accretion ring.
Due to their ultra high velocity (at the moment of creation), high gravity force and mighty magnetic field those particles are transformed into real atoms as they are drifted outwards.
The requested energy for that transformation is contributed by the gravity force + magnetic energy.
Therefore, the outflow jet from the accretion disc is a direct outcome from that process.
I hope that this explanation meets your expectations.

[Kryptid]

The requested energy for that transformation is contributed by the gravity force + magnetic energy.

The only way to get energy out of a gravitational field is by converting gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. This, in turn, can only be done by lowering a mass into the gravitational field. You, however, are taking a mass and pushing it out and far away from the black hole (in the form of jets). That doesn't give you energy, it requires it instead. So gravity is not a source of energy you can use for this.

Magnetism can indeed transfer energy (electric motors use this principle all the time), but that energy doesn't come from nowhere. The source of that magnetic field must lose energy in the process. If the source of the field is the accretion disk, then the disk must lose energy. If the source of the field is the black hole (in your hypothetical case), then the black hole must lose energy (likely by slowing down its spin). So you still have a system that loses energy and mass over time.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The only way to get energy out of a gravitational field is by converting gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. This, in turn, can only be done by lowering a mass into the gravitational field. You, however, are taking a mass and pushing it out and far away from the black hole (in the form of jets). That doesn't give you energy, it requires it instead. So gravity is not a source of energy you can use for this.

Yes, I agree.
However, without the ultra high gravity, no new particle would be created.

Magnetism can indeed transfer energy (electric motors use this principle all the time), but that energy doesn't come from nowhere.

That is fully correct.
So the energy should come from the magnetic field.

The source of that magnetic field must lose energy in the process.If the source of the field is the accretion disk, then the disk must lose energy.

That is also correct.
However, SMBH is the main source for the magnetic field and not the accretion disc itself.
In the article it is stated:

Our pair production rate simulations are based on a GRMHD time-dependent model of a magnetized disk around a spinning black hole.

The spinning black hole/SMBH sets the magnetic fields.
The amplitude/energy of the magnetic filed is directly effected by the total mass of the SMBH.

If the source of the field is the black hole (in your hypothetical case), then the black hole must lose energy (likely by slowing down its spin).

That is also correct if we isolate the SMBH.
However, our SMBH is not working for free.
Some of the new created particles must fall into the SMBH from the Event Horizon or close to it.
Therefore, as new particles are squirted outwards into the accretion disc, some of them are falling directly into the SMBH.
Those particles increase the total mass of the SMBH and therefore, there is increasing in the magnetic fields.
Hence, this increasing in the magnetic field overcomes the energy lost due to the creation activity of new atoms and molecular in the accretion disc and due to the requested energy that drifts them all outwards into that jet outflow.

So you still have a system that loses energy and mass over time.

No, there is a win-win situation.
Both - the accretion disc and the SMBH get new particles.
The accretion disc converts them into Atoms and molecular that will be used to form new stars, while the SMBH increases its mass during that activity.
Therefore, we get so massive objects as SMBH.
All the matter in the Milky way had been created by the SMBH (including the nearby dwarf galaxies and any other object that orbits around the galaxy)
Our galaxy will not accept any matter from outside.
As it crosses the space at a speed of over than 600 Km/sec its incredible gravity force swifts away any star and any smaller galaxy.

[Kryptid]

Those particles increase the total mass of the SMBH and therefore, there is increasing in the magnetic fields.
Hence, this increasing in the magnetic field overcomes the energy lost due to the creation activity of new atoms and molecular in the accretion disc and due to the requested energy that drifts them all outwards into that jet outflow.

That violates the first law of thermodynamics. You can't get more energy out than you put in.

Both - the accretion disc and the SMBH get new particles.

"New particles" does not equal "new mass/energy". The total mass/energy of the system cannot increase over time without violating the first law of thermodynamics.

Some of the new created particles must fall into the SMBH from the Event Horizon or close to it.

I thought you said that nothing can fall into the black hole because the magnetic field won't let it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Some of the new created particles must fall into the SMBH from the Event Horizon or close to it.

I thought you said that nothing can fall into the black hole because the magnetic field won't let it?

I have stated clearly - Nothing outside the accretion disc can fall into the accretion disc or the SMBH.
However, new created particles close to the event of horizon can fall into the accretion disc or the SMBH.

That violates the first law of thermodynamics. You can't get more energy out than you put in.
"New particles" does not equal "new mass/energy". The total mass/energy of the system cannot increase over time without violating the first law of thermodynamics.

No, there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
Please remember, Atom is a cell of energy.
I have discussed about it very deeply.
So, the energy in the atom is achieved by the Supper high gravity force pulse the mighty magnetic field.
Therefore, the creation of new atom should be represented as an energy transformation.
Remember the famous formula by Einstein
E = M c^2
In Atomic bomb the mass is converted into pure energy without any violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

In the accretion disc the opposite activity takes place.
Energy is transformed into new atom.
Therefore, we can claim that the energy E is contributed by the mighty force (gravity + magnetic) of the spinning black hole.
As an outcome we get:
M = E / c^2
That represents the Energy that is requested to create new atom without any violation of thermodynamics law.
Some of that mass falls inwards (into the SMBH) and the other part is ejected outwards as outflow jet.

Therefore, when we see an atomic bomb in action, we actually see the Energy of the SMBH that was kept in the Atom cell.
In the same token - Our Sun lights our life with the Energy that it have got from the SMBH (As it converts mass to Energy by fusion activity).
Even our body holds the Energy from the SMBH.
The whole galaxy is there due to the Energy from the SMBH.
Therefore, Energy can be transformed into mass as mass can be transformed into Energy.

[Kryptid]

No, there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

If you propose that a black hole can become heavier by eating some of the mass that was taken out of it, you are absolutely are proposing such a violation. Let's say that the magnetic field transfers 1.022 keV of mass-energy out of the black hole into order to form an electron-positron pair. The black hole must now weigh 1.022 keV less than it did before. Now, one of those particles (0.511 keV) is thrown either into the accretion disk or into the jet, while the other 0.511 keV particle falls back into the black hole. The black hole lost 1.022 keV by forming the particle pair and only got 0.511 keV back by eating one member of the pair. That's still a net loss of 0.511 keV. Elementary school arithmetic demands that the black hole has lost mass, not gained it.

Remember the famous formula by Einstein
E = M c^2
In Atomic bomb the mass is converted into pure energy without any violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

The total mass-energy before and after the explosion is identical, unlike what you are proposing.

Therefore, Energy can be transformed into mass as mass can be transformed into Energy.

Mass and energy are technically already equivalent. all they are doing is changing form from potential energy into kinetic energy or vice-versa. That still does not explain how you think a black hole can get heavier by eating mass that has already been taken out of it.

How do you think that a magnetic field and gravity can form new particles anyway? What mechanism is behind it? You can't be talking about Hawking radiation, since that causes a black hole to lose mass.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Let's say that the magnetic field transfers 1.022 keV of mass-energy out of the black hole into order to form an electron-positron pair. The black hole must now weigh 1.022 keV less than it did before.

Yes, that could be correct if the the creation of new partial/atom was only based on Magnetic force.
However, we already know that the magnetic force by itself can't create any new particle.
The combination of ultra high gravity of the SMBH + the mighty magnetic fields sets the creation of new particle/atom.
Therefore, the gravity has an important job in this new creation activity.
However, the gravity comes almost for free.
I say "almost" as our scientists consider that it is totally free.
We have already discussed deeply about the impact on the gravity force in the long run.
Let's look again on the Sun/Earth gravity system.
If I recall it correctly, you assume that the gravity stays at the same amplitude over time (assuming that there is no reduction in the mass).
So, you don't see any reduction in the gravity force while the sun holds the Earth in its orbital momentum by gravity.
You have stated that the Earth is drifting outwards not due to gravity force reduction but due to tidal.
So, you actually claim that the gravity is there for free for ever.
I have stated that there must be a "friction" or reduction also in gravity over time.
So, the Earth is drifting outwards over time as the gravity is reducing due to the orbital activity.
Therefore, I would like to understand from you:
Why when it comes to pair production there is a reduction in the gravity force, while when it comes to any gravity system (as the orbital path of the Sun around the galaxy) there is no gravity force reduction?
Our scientists assume that the Sun stays exactly at the same radius from its first moment.
Therefore, they claim that the Sun orbits around the galaxy for the last 6 billion years exactly at the same radius.
I don't agree with that as there must be also a reduction in gravity over time (even if it is a very low reduction).
In any case, if you assume that the sun is not losing gravity force due to its orbital momentum around the galaxy, than I can claim that a new created particle is also do not set any reduction in the gravity force of the SMBH (close to the Event Horizon).
Now, let's go back to your question:
I claim that the SMBH is losing much less than 1.022 keV in order to form an electron-positron pair as the activity of that creation is based on Gravity + Magnetic Energy.
As the Gravity comes almost for free, than the total reduction in the Gravity + Magnetic Energy must be less than 1.022 keV/2
For this explanation let's assume that the total reduction in the Gravity +Magnetic Energy of the SMBH that is needed to create electron-positron pair is 1.022 keV/4.
Now, if we assume that one particle is falling in the SMBH it gets a mass of 1.022 keV/2.
Therefore, it gains 1.022 keV/2 - 1.022 keV/4 in that activity.
Hence, while the accretion disc gets 1.022 keV/2 for free, the SMBH gains 1.022 keV/4.
This is a win win situation.