[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.

[Kryptid]

The combination of ultra high gravity of the SMBH + the mighty magnetic fields sets the creation of new particle/atom.

How do you propose that works, exactly? What is the precise mechanism?

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.

And why do you propose that gravity gets weaker over time? Why should that be the case? What causes it? More importantly, what evidence do you have for this?

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?

There isn't. The same total amount of mass is present and therefore the same total amount of gravity is also present. The only thing that has changed is the location of the mass. When a particle pair forms, the mass that formed the pair was taken out of the black hole. The total (black hole + particle pair) has the same mass as the original black hole before the formation of the pair.

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).

There would be a reduction of gravity from the Sun over time because the Sun is continually shooting particles, gas, and radiation out into the Universe. That process carries mass away from the Sun and therefore also decreases its gravity over time. There is no need for new physics to explain that.

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'm rather doubtful that this is the consensus view. Stars are constantly on the move, with some coming closer to the Sun and others moving further away. You would expect those gravitational interactions to change the Sun's position at least a little over time. Again, no need for new physics.

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).

The Sun is losing gravity because it is slowly losing mass. Gravity is directly linked to mass. Take away some mass and you take away some gravity. If you take particles out of the Sun, the Sun loses a bit of mass and gravity. This is happening constantly. The exact same thing happens if you remove mass from a black hole in order to form particles.

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.

Then you are explicitly breaking the first law of thermodynamics.

As the Gravity comes almost for free,

Gravity is "free" in the sense that a certain amount of gravity is always associated with a certain amount of mass. That's the gravitational constant.

than the total reduction in the Gravity + Magnetic Energy must be less than 1.022 keV/2

Non-sequitur.

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.

If you "assume" that, then you "assume" that there is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

This is a win win situation.

It is beyond my understanding how you think that a system which creates more mass-energy than it uses doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics. That's the very definition of what the law is.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The total (black hole + particle pair) has the same mass as the original black hole before the formation of the pair.

That is absolutely correct.
Please look at the following article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"the created particles shall have opposite values of each other. For instance, if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1, or if one particle has strangeness of +1 then another one must have strangeness of −1."
So, we get the pair-production without any effect on the SMBH mass as the total mass of the Pair is zero. (One is positive while the other is negative).

When a particle pair forms, the mass that formed the pair was taken out of the black hole.

That is totally incorrect
As I have proved the total mass of the pair is Zero, therefore, the pair production doesn't take any mass out of the black hole.
Therefore, the pair-production is for free.
The SMBH is not losing any mass due to this production process.
Now, let's assume that one particle is falling inwards into the SMBH, while the other one is squirted outwards to the accretion disc.
If a particle that falls inwards into the SMBH has the same polarity as the SMBH than it should increase the total mass of the SMBH. Otherwise, it should decrease the total mass.
The same idea is correct also for the particle which is squirted outwards to the accretion disc.
I claim that as the SMBH is made out of negative polarity mass, the in falling negative particle must increase its mass, while the other positive particle is squirted outwards into the accretion disc.
Our scientists consider that the SMBH is made out of positive polarity mass.
Therefore, they assume that the in falling negative particle should decrease its total mass.
This is their biggest mistake.
As I have already explained, the SMBH is a huge barrel for negative particles.
The gravity effects of Negative mass are identical to a positive mass.
Therefore, while the SMBH increases its negative mass, the accretion disc gets for free the positive particle.
Therefore, both are increasing their total mass without violation the first low of thermodynamics.

[Kryptid]

That is absolutely correct.
Please look at the following article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"the created particles shall have opposite values of each other. For instance, if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1, or if one particle has strangeness of +1 then another one must have strangeness of −1."
So, we get the pair-production without any effect on the SMBH mass as the total mass of the Pair is zero. (One is positive while the other is negative.

That isn't talking about mass (unless you are speaking of Hawking radiation, in which case the particle falling into the hole does indeed have a negative mass).

That is totally incorrect
As I have proved the total mass of the pair is Zero, therefore, the pair production doesn't take any mass out of the black hole.

Alright, let's assume that you are creating a negative-mass and positive-mass particle pair, for the sake of argument...

The SMBH is not losing any mass due to this production process.

If it's eating the negative-mass particle, it is.

I claim that as the SMBH is made out of negative polarity mass, the in falling negative particle must increase its mass, while the other positive particle is squirted outwards into the accretion disc.

That's not how math works. Making a negative number more negative is a decrease, not an increase. Going from -10 to -20 is a decrease. So the black hole is still losing mass if it's eating negative-mass particles.

The gravity effects of Negative mass are identical to a positive mass.

Anyone who can do basic arithmetic can prove this wrong by putting a negative number for mass into the gravitational force equation. You end up with a repulsion, not an attraction. A negative mass producing an attractive gravitational field indistinguishable from a positive mass would also lead to a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. It would allow you to create increasingly strong gravitational potentials out of nothing, which in turn creates extra gravitational potential energy of any orbiting objects out of nothing. That's a violation of conservation of energy.

Also, when are you going to explain what the mechanism is that allows gravity and magnetism alone to create charged particle pairs? The Hawking process isn't going to do it for a SMBH (only neutral particles can be created by them), so how does your idea work?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

That's not how math works. Making a negative number more negative is a decrease, not an increase. Going from -10 to -20 is a decrease. So the black hole is still losing mass if it's eating negative-mass particles.

Sorry, that is a fatal mistake
-10-1 = -11
So, as the SMBH is made out of negative polarity matter/mass, by adding a negative particle we do increase its total mass.
Why you don't agree with that?

[Halc]

That's not how math works. Making a negative number more negative is a decrease, not an increase. Going from -10 to -20 is a decrease. So the black hole is still losing mass if it's eating negative-mass particles.

Sorry, that is a fatal mistake
-10-1 = -11
So, as the SMBH is made out of negative polarity matter/mass, by adding a negative particle we do increase its total mass.

You didn't learn in 3rd grade that -11 is less than -10?  Adding a negative number to any number (positive or negative) decreases the value.

Also,  other masses (both positive and negative) will accelerate away from negative mass and thus cannot form gravitationally bound objects like a planet or black hole.  If you actually worked through the trivial equations of Newton's gravitational force and resulting acceleration (F=GMm/r˛ and F=ma, or a=GM/r˛), this would be apparent.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You didn't learn in 3rd grade that -11 is less than -10?  Adding a negative number to any number (positive or negative) decreases the value.
Also,  other masses (both positive and negative) will accelerate away from negative mass and thus cannot form gravitationally bound objects like a planet or black hole.  If you actually worked through the trivial equations of Newton's gravitational force and resulting acceleration (F=GMm/r˛ and F=ma, or a=GM/r˛), this would be apparent.

Let's look at the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
"In theoretical physics, negative mass is matter whose mass is of opposite sign to the mass of normal matter, e.g. −1 kg."
In our case, we do not discuss on a Negative mass.
We actually discuss on a negative charged mass.
Let's look on a pair particles (Positron/Electron)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron
"The positron or antielectron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1 e, a spin of 1/2 (same as electron), and has the same mass as an electron. "
So, the mass of the Positron is equal to the mass of the electron.
We don't have a negative mass, but we have a negative charged mass.
Therefore, the mass is there even for electron.
In gravity, we do not count the polarity of the mass charged.
We only monitor the total mass.
So, the total mass of one billion positrons is equal to the total mass of one billion electrons.
It is a mistake to assume that the mass of electron is –M Kg while the mass of the positron is +M kg.
Both have a positive mass, while their charged polarity is different.
So, the total mass of an object with only one billion positrons will be M, while the total mass with one billion electrons will also be M.
Again, both will be represented by real positive mass (and not negative mass).
Therefore, the gravity force of an object which is fully made with positrons should be identical to an object which is full made with the same numbers of electrons.

[Kryptid]

Why you don't agree with that?

Because -11 is smaller than -10...

Let's look at the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
"In theoretical physics, negative mass is matter whose mass is of opposite sign to the mass of normal matter, e.g. −1 kg."
In our case, we do not discuss on a Negative mass.
We actually discuss on a negative charged mass.
Let's look on a pair particles (Positron/Electron)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron
"The positron or antielectron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1 e, a spin of 1/2 (same as electron), and has the same mass as an electron. "
So, the mass of the Positron is equal to the mass of the electron.
We don't have a negative mass, but we have a negative charged mass.
Therefore, the mass is there even for electron.
In gravity, we do not count the polarity of the mass charged.
We only monitor the total mass.
So, the total mass of one billion positrons is equal to the total mass of one billion electrons.
It is a mistake to assume that the mass of electron is –M Kg while the mass of the positron is +M kg.
Both have a positive mass, while their charged polarity is different.
So, the total mass of an object with only one billion electrons will be M, while the total mass with one billion electrons will also be M.
Again, both will be represented by real positive mass (and not negative mass).
Therefore, the gravity force of an object which is fully made with positrons should be identical to an object which is full made with the same numbers of electrons.

Now you are contradicting yourself, because you explicitly said:

The gravity effects of Negative mass are identical to a positive mass.
Therefore, while the SMBH increases its negative mass, the accretion disc gets for free the positive particle.

If we are still talking about positive mass, then what I said here still applies:

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Now you are contradicting yourself, because you explicitly said:

The gravity effects of Negative mass are identical to a positive mass.

Therefore, while the SMBH increases its negative mass, the accretion disc gets for free the positive particle.

Sorry for that.
My intention was negative charged mass.
In any case, from the SMBH point of view, those new created particles has an opposite charged and therefore, they do not have any effect on its mass at the moment of their creation.
Actually if one second later on they will meet with each other, they will eliminate each other:
"When a positron collides with an electron, annihilation occurs."
So, the creation of the pair-production does not change the total mass of the SMBH as the annihilation does not change its mass.

[Halc]

My intention was negative charged mass.
In any case, from the SMBH point of view, those new created particles has an opposite charged and therefore, they do not have any effect on its mass at the moment of their creation.
Actually if one second later on they will meet with each other, they will eliminate each other:
"When a positron collides with an electron, annihilation occurs."
So, the creation of the pair-production does not change the total mass of the SMBH as the annihilation does not change its mass.

Everything you say here violates thermodynamic law.  Both electrons and positrons have positive mass, so together their creation takes mass away from whatever energy source created them.  If they're produced by the energy of a black hole, that makes the black hole less massive.  Your continued insistence otherwise is a self-contradiction with your idea, which renders it invalid.

Yes, an electron and positron will eliminate each other, producing a pair of photons in the process with mass/energy equal to the mass/energy of the electron and positron.  The net mass is totally unchanged by this interaction, as it must be since mass cannot be destroyed any more than it can be created.

[Kryptid]

In any case, from the SMBH point of view, those new created particles has an opposite charged and therefore, they do not have any effect on its mass at the moment of their creation.

If the needed mass-energy to create the electron-positron pair didn't come from the black hole, then where did it come from? It has to come from somewhere. Whatever that source of mass-energy may be, the source must lose mass-energy in the process of creating that particle pair because that particle pair has a positive net mass-energy. That mass-energy cannot come from the gravitational or magnetic field themselves, as fields can only transform or transfer mass-energy, not create it.

Actually if one second later on they will meet with each other, they will eliminate each other:
"When a positron collides with an electron, annihilation occurs."
So, the creation of the pair-production does not change the total mass of the SMBH as the annihilation does not change its mass.

If the particles annihilate, then you don't have a scenario where one falls into the black hole and the other moves out into the accretion disk. But how can it move out into the accretion disk anyway? You claim that the magnetic field is an impassable barrier. A charged particle shouldn't be able to get through it.

This is the key question to know whether your model breaks the first law of thermodynamics or not:

Does the black hole-accretion disk-jet system increase the total amount of mass-energy in the Universe over time?

If your answer to this question is "no", then you have obeyed the first law of thermodynamics.

If your answer to this question is "yes", then your model violates the first law of thermodynamics and has therefore falsified itself.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If the needed mass-energy to create the electron-positron pair didn't come from the black hole, then where did it come from? It has to come from somewhere. Whatever that source of mass-energy may be, the source must lose mass-energy in the process of creating that particle pair because that particle pair has a positive net mass-energy. That mass-energy cannot come from the gravitational or magnetic field themselves, as fields can only transform or transfer mass-energy, not create it.

Based on what data do you set this assumption?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
In the following 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."
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole."
It is stated clearly that the particle–antiparticle radiation/creation does not come directly from the black hole itself.
Therefore, the BH doesn't lose any mass during this creation process.
In the article it is stated also:
"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"
So, "the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
Hence. the creation itself has no effect on the BH mass. As the positive charged particle is ejected outwards, the Negative charged particle must fall in. Our scientists estimate that the BH is made out of positive charged mass; Therefore, this in falling Negative charged particle should reduce its total mass.
So, again - the creation of the pair particles do not have any impact on the total mass of the BH.
Therefore, how could it be that you both are so sure that the creation of the Pair- production must decrease the BH mass while in this article it is stated clearly that it does not come directly from the mass of the black hole itself?
If you still believe that the creation of the pair-production must decrease the mass of the BH than please prove it by real article.

[Kryptid]

Based on what data do you set this assumption?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
In the following 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."
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole."
It is stated clearly that the particle–antiparticle radiation/creation does not come directly from the black hole itself.
Therefore, the BH doesn't lose any mass during this creation process.
In the article it is stated also:
"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"
So, the creation itself has no effect on the BH mass. As the positive charged particle is ejected outwards, the Negative charged particle must fall in. Our scientists estimate that the BH is made out of positive charged mass; Therefore, this in falling Negative charged particle should reduce its total mass.
So, again - the creation of the pair particles do not have any impact on the total mass of the BH.
Therefore, how could it be that you both are so sure that the creation of the Pair- production must decrease the BH mass while in this article it is stated clearly that it does not come directly from the mass of the black hole itself?
If you still believe that the creation of the pair-production must decrease the mass of the BH than please prove it by real article.

The particle pair created from the Hawking process does not come directly from the black hole, no, but the net result of the process is the removal of mass from the hole. Adding a negative mass particle (take careful note that I said negative mass and not negative charge, because charge is not what this is about) to a positive mass black hole must necessarily result in the reduction of the black hole's mass.

Hawking radiation involves the creation of a positive mass particle and a negative mass particle (take note again that I am talking about mass here, not positive and negative charge). The negative mass particle falls in and reduces the black hole's mass while the positive mass particle carries the equivalent amount of mass lost by the black hole into the outside Universe.

This, however, does not apply to your model since you insist that negative mass is not involved with whatever process it is that you posit is taking place. Hence why I say that you need to explain the mechanism by which this occurs. Where does the energy come from to create the particle pair in your model? If negative mass is not involved, then each particle must have a positive mass in your model. As such, a source of energy is needed to create them.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The particle pair created from the Hawking process does not come directly from the black hole, no, but the net result of the process is the removal of mass from the hole. Adding a negative mass particle (take careful note that I said negative mass and not negative charge, because charge is not what this is about) to a positive mass black hole must necessarily result in the reduction of the black hole's mass.

Where do you get the idea of negative mass and not negative charge???
Did you read the article?
It is stated clearly:
"As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle
"In particle physics, every type of particle has an associated antiparticle with the same mass but with opposite physical charges (such as electric charge). For example, the antiparticle of the electron is the antielectron (which is often referred to as positron). While the electron has a negative electric charge, the positron has a positive electric charge, "
So it is stated clearly that the antimatter is a negative charged mass.
What is your source for negative mass?
Why do you insist on this none realistic idea?

[jeffreyH]

"As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"

The gravitational energy extends beyond the event horizon and into the external universe.

Some particles are theorised to be their own antiparticle. So opposite charge would not apply.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion

[Kryptid]

Where do you get the idea of negative mass and not negative charge???
Did you read the article?
It is stated clearly:
"As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle
"In particle physics, every type of particle has an associated antiparticle with the same mass but with opposite physical charges (such as electric charge). For example, the antiparticle of the electron is the antielectron (which is often referred to as positron). While the electron has a negative electric charge, the positron has a positive electric charge, "
So it is stated clearly that the antimatter is a negative charged mass.

I see your reading comprehension went out the window again. Electrons, which are matter particles, are the negatively-charged particles. The positrons, which are antimatter, are positively-charged.

In the case of a positron-electron pair, yes, one is negatively-charged and one is positively-charged. But this need not be the case. A pair of photons, which are neutral, can be formed instead. We've been through all of this before...

What is your source for negative mass?
Why do you insist on this none realistic idea?

Stephen Hawking himself, for one. He mentions it in his book A Brief History of Time. The reason one particle has positive mass and the other negative mass is specifically because the first law of thermodynamics has to be obeyed. The particles were pulled out of a zero-energy state, so their total mass has to add up to zero. By one being positive and the other negative, this is accomplished.

We've already discussed all of this before, don't you remember? We even discussed why the negative mass particle has to be the one that falls into the hole.