[Dave Lev (OP)]

Black holes aren't made of matter or antimatter, like I said before. They are basically raw mass/energy with a couple of other properties such as spin and electric charge. It's meaningless to call it either matter or antimatter. What causes the black hole to evaporate is the consumption of negative mass/energy, not antimatter.

Sorry, the explanation is very clear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"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. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle–antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon."
You have already confirmed it:

The idea of Hawking-Bekenstein radiation is that virtual particle pairs created near the event horizon might be pulled apart by the strong gravity.
So again, the total positive energy in the ordinary positive particle is identical to the total negative energy in the ordinary negative particle. Hence, we get two new real particles orbiting at the speed of light near the event of horizon, one with a positive energy and one with negative energy without consuming energy from the system itself and without contradicting the conservation of law of Mass/energy.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 14/07/2020 03:58:32
Therefore during this process the decreasing amount of mass-energy in the BH is identical to the amount of the Mass-energy in the other free particle.

Congratulations. That is exactly how it works.

I don't think that's what he's arguing. When he says "pulled through the event horizon", I think he means being pulled into the black hole from the outside.

Hence, as the antiparticle is falling into the BH, it decreases the total mass energy of the BH by the amount of energy in its mass (E=Mc^2) due to the idea that in the BH there is matter while the falling antiparticle is considered as antimatter.
Actually based on your explanation:
I fully agree with you that BHs "are basically raw mass/energy with a couple of other properties such as spin and electric charge.".
However, if the ejected particle consumes its mass energy from the BH is should consume it from this energy from the spin or electric charge of the BH and not from the mass of the BH itself.
However, based on Hawking_radiation the energy must come from the BH mass itself and not from the BH' energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E = mc2)."
Therefore, do you agree that there is only one explanation for that:
What causes the black hole to evaporate is the consumption of negative mass/energy which is by definition the falling antimatter or antiparticle into the BH?
In any case, In this article they don't say even one word about the Kinetic and potential energy of the new created particles.
Therefore, they don't ask to reduce the BH energy by the kinetic + potential energy that the new particles have got due to the mighty gravity force of the BH.
Hence, do you at least agree that the particle pair's kinetic + Potential energy isn't deducted from the BH energy as it is due to the gravity force itself?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:07:58
Hence, as the antiparticle is falling into the BH, it decreases the total mass energy of the BH by the amount of energy in its mass

You are indeed still confusing the two, as has been pointed out over a dozen times. Yet since your goal it to troll and not to learn, you will continue to do this.

What do you understand from the following?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Oh look!  No mention of antimatter or an antiparticle being what reduces the mass of the black hole.

Is it real?
It is stated clearly:
"One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. "
So, do you agree that they discuss on the particle pair?
Do you also agree that in any new created particle pair there is a one particle + another antiparticle?
Didn't you see the following message?

Quote from: Malamute Lover on Yesterday at 19:33:19
The antimatter produced in collider events has positive mass-energy. It just has other quantum values reversed – negative charge protons, positive charge electrons etc.

Yes again. We discuss on antimatter with positive mass energy.
So, for example the new created particle pair could be as follow:
Particle/matter - Positive charge as electrons
Antiparticle/Antimatter - Negative charge as protons.

So, if we you wish to call a particle - matter, do you agree that we have to call the other one antiparticle or antimatter?
In any case, what do you understand from: "in order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). "
So, do you agree that if the falling particle is actually "Antiparticle/Antimatter - Negative charge as protons." while the black hole has a positive energy, (or vice versa) than:
"This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle."

If you still think differently, than please introduce your explanation for the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle."

[Kryptid]

Sorry, the explanation is very clear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"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. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle–antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon."
You have already confirmed it:

None of that contradicts what I said. Nowhere does that say that only antimatter particles can fall into the black hole. Yes, the Hawking process does cause the black hole to lose mass (which is true regardless of whether it's the matter particle or antimatter particle falling in).

Hence, as the antiparticle is falling into the BH, it decreases the total mass energy of the BH by the amount of energy in its mass (E=Mc^2) due to the idea that in the BH there is matter while the falling antiparticle is considered as antimatter.

That's not how that works. Matter annihilating with antimatter doesn't destroy mass/energy. The same amount remains after the annihilation. It just changes form. It's the negative mass/energy of the infalling particle/anti-particle that cancels out some of the mass of the black hole. That will happen regardless of whether the particle is matter or antimatter.

However, if the ejected particle consumes its mass energy from the BH is should consume it from this energy from the spin or electric charge of the BH and not from the mass of the BH itself.

This is wrong because a black hole with no charge and no spin will still evaporate over time.

What causes the black hole to evaporate is the consumption of negative mass/energy which is by definition the falling antimatter or antiparticle into the BH?

Please stop confusing negative mass/energy with antimatter. They are not the same thing.

Hence, do you at least agree that the particle pair's kinetic + Potential energy isn't deducted from the BH energy as it is due to the gravity force itself?

No, because, as I have said for the millionth time, that would violate conservation of energy. The total energy of the system cannot increase.

So, do you agree that if the falling particle is actually "Antiparticle/Antimatter - Negative charge as protons." while the black hole has a positive energy, (or vice versa) than:

Don't confuse negative charge with negative mass/energy. They are not the same thing.

[Malamute Lover]

You seem to be confusing negative mass-energy particles with antimatter.

No, I'm not confused

Then you understand that:

Antimatter created in collider events has positive mass energy. The total mass-energy of the input is conserved.  This includes both the mass of the colliding particles and their energy of motion. The results may differ in mass and in energy but the total mass-energy is conserved. Likewise all quantum values are conserved.

In virtual particle pairs (which appear and disappear by themselves, no collider needed) one partner will be normal matter and the other antimatter and one partner will have positive mass-energy and the other negative mass-energy.

As far as we know, the normal matter one might have either positive mass-energy or negative mass-energy and the antimatter on might have positive mass-energy or negative mass-energy.

Possibilities for virtual particle pairs are therefore:

Possibility A:
One partner is normal matter and has positive mass-energy
The other partner is antimatter and has negative mass-energy

Possibility B:
One partner is antimatter and has positive mass-energy
The other partner is normal matter and has negative mass-energy

Is this what you understand? Based on what you posted below, that does not appear to be the case.

Black holes have the usual ‘down’ kind of gravity, attracting matter in spirals that we see getting denser and hotter as they get closer to the black hole. Black holes cannot consist of negative mass-energy because that would be repulsive instead of attractive.

Yes, I fully agree.
Therefore, we only discuss on new created particle pair (Particle/matter + antiparticle/antimatter) with positive mass energy.

I see that you do NOT understand the above.

In a virtual particle pair, one has positive mass-energy, the other has negative mass-energy. In Hawking-Bekenstein radiation, it is presumed that the negative mass-energy particle is always the one to fall through the event horizon. Adding negative mass-energy to the black hole reduces its mass-energy. That allows the positive mass-energy particle left outside to become real rather than disappearing as virtual particles ordinarily do.

As I have already stated, I have a number of issues with this scenario but that is nonetheless what the published Hawking-Bekenstein radiation mechanism says.

The antimatter produced in collider events has positive mass-energy. It just has other quantum values reversed – negative charge protons, positive charge electrons etc.

Yes again. We discuss on antimatter with positive mass energy.
So, for example the new created particle pair could be as follow:
Particle/matter - Positive charge as electrons
Antiparticle/Antimatter - Negative charge as protons.

In collider events, the result always preserves the mass-energy and quantum value totals of the input. Since the mass-energy of the input is always positive, because that is the only kind we can get our hands on, the mass-energy of the output will always be positive.

The result does not have to be a pair of particles. It might be but often not. All that matters is that the total of mass-energy and quantum numbers in the output balances the input. I think you may still be confusing the real particle result of collider events with spontaneously created virtual particle pairs.

Black holes do not preferably ingest antimatter over matter. It is equally likely to consume either one.

Well, you discuss about the matter that it consumes.
However, I discuss about the matter inside the BH.
Do you agree that the chance to have a BH with antimatter might be similar to the chance for a BH with matter?
So, let's go back to Hawking-Bekenstein mechanisn
We already know that due to that mechanism as one of the pair (antiparticle/antimatter) is falling in, the other one (particle/matter) is ejected outwards.
Therefore, for a BH which is based on matter, falling antimatter should decrease its mass and eventually it must be evaporated.
However, in the same token, for a BH which is based on Antimatter, a falling Antimatter should increase its mass.
Hence, Hawking had estimated that in the case of a black hole (with matter) formed in the early universe with a mass of less than approximately 10^15 g would have evaporated completely by the present day.
However, it is very clear that for a BH with antimatter should increase its total mass due to the falling antimatter.
Therefore, statistically we could have two kinds of BHs
One kind of BH must be evaporated over time while the other kind must increase its mass over time.

You definitely do not understand that real antimatter, the kind that can result from collider events has positive mass-energy. A black hole that got formed out of antimatter would, to an outside observer, act exactly like one formed with normal matter.

Therefore, this could also be the answer for the following problem of the symmetry law:

For the matter/antimatter symmetry to be resolved by black holes being antimatter would require that the mass of all matter in the universe not in black holes be equal to the amount of mass in black holes. While there are SMBH in the heart of most galaxies, they constitute only a tiny fraction of the mass of the galaxy. (Not counting dark matter) Other black holes within a galaxy contribute only a miniscule amount to the black hole mass total.  Unless there are somehow a whole bunch of black holes or truly colossal ones that have not been noticed, this condition is not satisfied.

The total created amount of matter from day one of the Universe is identical to the total created antimatter.
However, as many BHs had been evaporated, we think that there is no balance.
Therefore, In the core of the Milky Way Galaxy there is a SMBH which is full with antimatter.
Due to the new created particle pair process around it, one antiparticle is falling in and increases it mass, while the other one is ejected outwards and also increasing the total matter around it.
Therefore, do you agree that we can get a system that simultaneously increases the total Antimatter mass of the SMBH and the matter around the BH without violating the symmetry law or the conservation of energy law?

Do you see the part that the mass of all the black holes around is only a very small fraction of the mass of the ordinary matter that is around? If the universe started off with equal amounts of ordinary matter and antimatter – a reasonable assumption – there is still a bias toward ordinary matter. Where is all the antimatter that is not in black holes. And how did antimatter get separated from ordinary matter to get locked up in black holes?

Go back to the first part of this post and look over what I said.

[Halc]

Oh look!  No mention of antimatter or an antiparticle being what reduces the mass of the black hole.

Is it real?
It is stated clearly:
"One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. "

The only Hawking radiation from a SMBH is massless things, and there's no such thing as an anti-photon. Just a pair of photons with positive and negative energy respectively. If a virtual matter/antimatter pair manages to get produced at the event horizon, neither escapes, so there is no net effect to the mass of the black hole.

Do you also agree that in any new created particle pair there is a one particle + another antiparticle?

No. There's no such thing as anti-light or an anti-graviton.

The antimatter produced in collider events has positive mass-energy.

Yes, because such colliders utilize energy taken from outside. Hawking radiation has no such energy source, despite your continued equivocation of force, gravitational field, and energy, all of which are different things.

So, if we you wish to call a particle - matter, do you agree that we have to call the other one antiparticle or antimatter?

Again, neither particle is antimatter since there is no antiphoton.

So, do you agree that if the falling particle is actually "Antiparticle/Antimatter - Negative charge as protons."
 while the black hole has a positive energy, (or vice versa) than:
"This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle."

No, because the virtual proton would have also fallen in and the outside observer would observer nothing. Only massless stuff escapes a black hole of any reasonable mass. There is no radiation of any matter or antimatter.

[Bored chemist]

One odd but interesting fact about Hawking radiation.
It's not emitted by the black hole (nothing can be)
The radiation is produced by the space round the hole.
And that space is  just the same as the stuff between you and your computer. It produces virtual particle/ antiparticle pairs all the time. You don't normally notice because they recombine.
Of course, if one "falls" into a black hole there's nothing left for it's twin to recombine with.

The corollary of that fact is that the radiation from near a black hole can't depend on what sort of matter the hole was created from, because the hole isn't what makes the radiation.

So, even in the practically impossible situation of a black hole that formed from anti-matter- the radiation would be identical to that from a hole made from normal matter.
There's a reason why black holes don't have hair.

[Malamute Lover]

Oh look!  No mention of antimatter or an antiparticle being what reduces the mass of the black hole.

Is it real?
It is stated clearly:
"One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. "

The only Hawking radiation from a SMBH is massless things, and there's no such thing as an anti-photon. Just a pair of photons with positive and negative energy respectively. If a virtual matter/antimatter pair manages to get produced at the event horizon, neither escapes, so there is no net effect to the mass of the black hole.

Since it is gravitational gradient that is supposed to be producing the effect, the larger the black hole, the smaller the Hawking-Bekenstein process. Large black holes would emit only low energy photons which would be more than made up for by the Cosmic Microwave Background falling into the black hole. Only very small black holes would have the gravitational gradient steep enough to produce actual particles with mass.

A photon is its own anti-particle. Virtual photons do in fact come in pairs. One with positive energy and one with negative energy.

It is not on the event horizon but just above it that the Hawking-Bekenstein process takes place. But you do raise a good point. A virtual particle of sufficient momentum to escape the steep gravitational gradient would be an exceedingly rare event. In the vast majority of virtual particle pair creation, they would both fall in.  Since photons always travel at light speed, they can more easily escape the vicinity of the event horizon.

Do you also agree that in any new created particle pair there is a one particle + another antiparticle?

No. There's no such thing as anti-light or an anti-graviton.

As previously noted, a photon is its own antiparticle. And virtual photons do come in positive and negative energy values. We are not even sure there are gravitons or what they are like or if virtual graviton pairs occur. If virtual gravitons are in fact the carriers of the gravitational force then they would come in pairs since that is how exchange virtual particles work.

The antimatter produced in collider events has positive mass-energy.

Yes, because such colliders utilize energy taken from outside. Hawking radiation has no such energy source, despite your continued equivocation of force, gravitational field, and energy, all of which are different things.

Forces involve energy. Gravitational fields have negative energy, pulling instead of pushing. While General Relativity involves traveling along geodesics in curved spacetime, unless one is solving GR tensor equations it is perfectly legitimate to talk about the force of gravity.  I do not see your point.

So, if we you wish to call a particle - matter, do you agree that we have to call the other one antiparticle or antimatter?

Again, neither particle is antimatter since there is no antiphoton.

Of course, there is. In matter/antimatter annihilation processes, initially a pair of photons is produced. If this is a high energy event as in a collider, the photons will typically decay into massive particles because there is sufficient energy to produce the required masses.  In less energetic events, such as positron emission decay in Potassium 40 and subsequent annihilation with an electron, the photons have insufficient energy for mass creation. The two photons created by the annihilation have the same frequency but opposite polarization and travel in exactly opposite directions. Since photons have no rest-mass, zero charge and zero spin, there is nothing else to balance. In this way they obey conservation laws.

Virtual photon pairs would work the same except that one would have positive energy and the other negative energy.

So, do you agree that if the falling particle is actually "Antiparticle/Antimatter - Negative charge as protons."
 while the black hole has a positive energy, (or vice versa) than:
"This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle."

No, because the virtual proton would have also fallen in and the outside observer would observer nothing. Only massless stuff escapes a black hole of any reasonable mass. There is no radiation of any matter or antimatter.

As I mentioned earlier, the orphaned virtual particle would need to have suitable momentum to escape the steep gravitational gradient. That much energy headed in the right direction (momentum is a vector) sounds very rare.

At this time, I will add one more point to my criticism of Harking-Bekenstein radiation. It all started with Bekenstein wondering what happened to the entropy associated with whatever fell into a black hole. It would seem that the entropy of the universe would decrease, which is a no-no. However, because of the extreme time-dilation as one approaches the event horizon, an object dropped into it will never actually reach the event horizon from the viewpoint of an outside observer. As far as the universe is concerned, the object and its entropy never go away. No need to invoke the emission of compensating radiation to balance the books.

[Kryptid]

Do you see the part that the mass of all the black holes around is only a very small fraction of the mass of the ordinary matter that is around? If the universe started off with equal amounts of ordinary matter and antimatter – a reasonable assumption – there is still a bias toward ordinary matter. Where is all the antimatter that is not in black holes. And how did antimatter get separated from ordinary matter to get locked up in black holes?

This is a good point. If Dave's model was right, then there should be an equal mass of antimatter inside of Sagittarius A* as there is matter in the Milky Way galaxy (or, possibly, the black hole should have even more mass than the rest of the galaxy because some of the mass of the galaxy could have escaped into intergalactic space over time). But that's nowhere remotely correct. The mass of that black hole is about 4.1 million solar masses, whereas the total mass of the Milky Way is about 1 trillion solar masses. The whole galaxy is over 200,000 times more massive than the central black hole. This fact alone falsifies Dave's model.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 07:07:58
Hence, do you at least agree that the particle pair's kinetic + Potential energy isn't deducted from the BH energy as it is due to the gravity force itself?

No, because, as I have said for the millionth time, that would violate conservation of energy. The total energy of the system cannot increase.

Sorry, I totally disagree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"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.[citation needed] 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, it is clearly stated that
1.  It "is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles"
2. "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"

So, hawking claims specifically for: "black hole's gravitational energy" that boosts the new created particle.
Without it, there is no new particle.
If so, why do you insist that gravity force couldn't contribute its force/energy to speed up the new created particle at v and sets it at a radius r?
If you insist that it is not due to gravity force, than how the new created particle gets there at radius r and at velocity v?
Who is in charge to deliver the energy for that activity?
Please be aware that in that article it is stated that the energy for the escape particle is taken from the BH mass, while there is not even a single word about the missing energy due to the particle kinetic or potential energy.
"When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E = mc2)."
So, if Hawking had told us that the velocity is due to gravity energy, how can you contradicts his statement?
Do you estimate that his knowledge in energy conservation is so poor?

[Kryptid]

Please be aware that in that article it is stated that the energy for the escape particle is taken from the BH mass

Exactly. This is why black holes can't create mass/energy. All of the mass of the particles that it emits causes its mass to decrease by the exact same amount. This is the opposite of what your model claims.

[Bored chemist]

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

No.
Particle- antiparticle pairs (Most commonly photons) are produced in space at random , all the time.
You don't need the BH to do that.


What the field gradient near the event horizon of the BH does is offers a way to keep the particle (at the expense of the BH becoming slightly less massive).

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Exactly. This is why black holes can't create mass/energy. All of the mass of the particles that it emits causes its mass to decrease by the exact same amount. This is the opposite of what your model claims.

Your message directly contradicts with Hawking explanation as he claims that "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy".
So, based on hawking, BH's gravity is the ultimate source for the velocity of the new created particle.

Why Hawking didn't reduce the Particle kinetic energy + the potential energy from the BH Mass-energy?
Why he had just claimed for the mass energy E=mc^2?
Are you sure that the following statement by Hawking is incorrect:
1.  It "is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles"
2. "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"

Please be aware that the kinetic energy is:
E=M v^2 / 2
If the virtual/real particle is moving at the speed of light at the moment of creation, than its energy should be:
Ek = m c^2 / 2
While its potential energy is:
Ep = m G r
The event horizon radius is:
https://steemit.com/space/@getonthetrain/can-light-orbit-a-black-hole
Rh = 2 M G / c^2
While the photon sphere radius is
Rf = 3/2 Rh =  3 M G / c^2
As the new created particle is ejected into the photon sphere, than its potential energy should be:
Ep = m G Rf = m G  3 M G / c^2 = 3 M m G^2 /c^2

Hence, the total kinetic + potential energy is:
Et = Ek + Ep = m c^2 / 2 + 3 M m G^2 /c^2
I hope that I don't have an error in this calculation.
So, we clearly see that that Et is quite high energy
Therefore, how could it be that Hawking had totally neglected that kind of total energy?
If you have an article that indicates the source for that Et, than would you kindly introduce that article?

[Bored chemist]

Your message directly contradicts with Hawking explanation as he claims that "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy".

It's a pity that he's no longer here to clarify it.
What causes the radiation is the field gradient.

[Kryptid]

Your message directly contradicts with Hawking explanation as he claims that "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy".

And the black hole's gravitational field is made weaker after the particle is emitted because the black hole's mass decreases.

Are you sure that the following statement by Hawking is incorrect:
1.  It "is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles"
2. "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"

They aren't incorrect. You, however, are incorrect if you claim that this process increases the total amount of mass/energy in the Universe.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:59:05
Are you sure that the following statement by Hawking is incorrect:
1.  It "is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles"
2. "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"

They aren't incorrect.

Thanks
So, you agree with this message by Hawking.
Therefore, I hope that you also understand that the meaning for that is that the "virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles" and therefore, the velocity of the "particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
Hence, Et (total energy) which equal to Ek +Ep of the new created particle is given by the "black hole's gravitational energy".

You, however, are incorrect if you claim that this process increases the total amount of mass/energy in the Universe.

I clearly claim that based on Hawking confirmation, the new created particle gets its Et from the gravity energy. However, as gravity force/energy is for free, than also this Et is for free!!!

And the black hole's gravitational field is made weaker after the particle is emitted because the black hole's mass decreases.

I fully agree with Hawking that the BH is losing energy due to the creation of new particle.
Therefore, As the mass-energy in the ejected particle is E=mc^2, than the BH is losing exactly E=mc^2.
No more, no less.

[Bored chemist]

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

No
Quite the reverse. The particles were slowed down by the BH's gravity.

I clearly claim that based on Hawking confirmation, the new created particle gets its Et from the gravity energy and it is for free!!!

But it doesn't.
It gets its velocity- if it's a photon, from the fact that photons can't have any other velocity. The photon will have lost energy (and become red-shifted) as it travels away from the BH.
If it's a particle with rest mass (which is a lot more rare) then , as I said, it started off with a  velocity "borrowed" from quantum fluctuations of space near the EH of the BH.
And then the BH robbed it of most of that velocity as the particle left the area,.

That's all I need. No more, no less.

But it's the opposite of what you have actually got.

[Malamute Lover]

Exactly. This is why black holes can't create mass/energy. All of the mass of the particles that it emits causes its mass to decrease by the exact same amount. This is the opposite of what your model claims.

Your message directly contradicts with Hawking explanation as he claims that "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy".
So, based on hawking, BH's gravity is the ultimate source for the velocity of the new created particle.

Why Hawking didn't reduce the Particle kinetic energy + the potential energy from the BH Mass-energy?
Why he had just claimed for the mass energy E=mc^2?
Are you sure that the following statement by Hawking is incorrect:
1.  It "is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles"
2. "As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"

Please be aware that the kinetic energy is:
E=M v^2 / 2
If the virtual/real particle is moving at the speed of light at the moment of creation, than its energy should be:
Ek = m c^2 / 2
While its potential energy is:
Ep = m G r
The event horizon radius is:
https://steemit.com/space/@getonthetrain/can-light-orbit-a-black-hole
Rh = 2 M G / c^2
While the photon sphere radius is
Rf = 3/2 Rh =  3 M G / c^2
As the new created particle is ejected into the photon sphere, than its potential energy should be:
Ep = m G Rf = m G  3 M G / c^2 = 3 M m G^2 /c^2

Hence, the total kinetic + potential energy is:
Et = Ek + Ep = m c^2 / 2 + 3 M m G^2 /c^2
I hope that I don't have an error in this calculation.
So, we clearly see that that Et is quite high energy
Therefore, how could it be that Hawking had totally neglected that kind of total energy?
If you have an article that indicates the source for that Et, than would you kindly introduce that article?

The virtual particles that fill space is not what Hawking was talking about either. He was talking about positive and negative solutions to a wave equation in the context of incoming particles as a black hole is being formed. The simultaneous reality of the positive and negative wave solutions is supposedly due to the coordinate system being shifted by the strong gravitational field being formed. Basically, the energy level associated with the vacuum is changed, allowing mathematical games to be played with positive and negative energy levels. For an already formed black hole, virtual particle pairs are substituted into the description to make it more understandable.

Personally, I have a problem with the coordinate system being shifted as a cause of simultaneous reality of positive and negative wave solutions. Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism have positive and negative wave solutions. Retarded waves, as they are called, are the familiar positive energy electromagnetic waves of radio broadcasts etc. But no one has ever noticed negative energy (advanced) waves coming in from the universe and hitting the broadcast tower at the moment of transmission.  It seems that our spacetime does not allow negative energy.  If that is indeed the case, then the Hawking radiation process is in trouble.

Also keep in mind that the measured speed and therefore measured energy level (proportional to frequency) of electromagnetic waves is always constant regardless of frame of reference. If the locally effective energy level of the vacuum were changed, it should not be noticeable locally.  Negative waveforms should not be detectable, that is, have any real consequences.

In the conventional popular explanation, it is virtual particle pairs that are discussed, one partner having positive energy and one having negative energy. No net energy change. The original formulation of an incoming particle having simultaneous positive and negative frequency solutions to its wave expression is also conservation friendly.

Concerning the kinetic and potential energy calculation:

If I am reading this right, you are keeping all the kinetic energy on the way up the gravitational well but still adding potential energy. Not legal. One feeds the other at its own expense.

If the ejected particle is not a photon, that is, if it has non-zero mass, then it will experience deceleration on the way up and lose kinetic energy in exact proportion to its gain in potential energy. (I am ignoring intervening variables like friction that might rob energy.)  The gain in potential energy, which is the loss of kinetic energy, matches the loss of (negative) gravitational field energy. Positive kinetic energy and negative gravitational field energy both move closer to zero. To understand that a little better, by moving mass away from the black hole, mass density has been reduced and the gravitational force is less than it was.

If the velocity of the particle dropped to zero, it would fall back and trade its potential energy for kinetic energy. Mass density would increase and gravitational force would increase.  The increased kinetic energy would be balanced by a gain (away from zero) in negative energy in the gravitational field.

If the ejected particle is a photon, it will be red shifted on the way up the gravitational well. Lower frequency means less energy. This energy loss matches the (negative) energy loss in the gravitational field. If the photon were reflected back by a lossless mirror, it would gain frequency and energy on the way down. These are the exact analogs of kinetic energy and potential energy.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It seems that our spacetime does not allow negative energy.  If that is indeed the case, then the Hawking radiation process is in trouble.

Yes, I fully agree with you.
I will explain it later on.
However, concerning the kinetic and potential energy:

If I am reading this right, you are keeping all the kinetic energy on the way up the gravitational well but still adding potential energy. Not legal. One feeds the other at its own expense.

Well, why do you claim for: " kinetic energy on the way up"
I ONLY focus on the Ek and Et at the single moment of creation.
So, let's assume that the virtual particle had been converted to real particle at radius r.
Hence, before it starts its "way up" activity, do you confirm that its Ek + Ep was given by the gravity force energy as stated by Hawking?

It gets its velocity- if it's a photon,

Did you had a chance to read the following article about Hawking radiation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
If you do so, you would find the following message:
"When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E = mc2)."
Do you agree that hawking specifically claims for ejected particle with mass energy of E=mc^2?
Do you consider it as a mass less photon or particle with real positive mass energy?
So, how can you claim for photon while Hawking is specifically discussing about a particle with positive mass energy?

No
Quite the reverse. The particles were slowed down by the BH's gravity.

Please remember, we discuss on its Et at the moment of creation.

But it's the opposite of what you have actually got.

So would you kindly prove your understanding by the attached Hawking article?

[Bored chemist]

What is your source for that?
Is it real or just a personal wishful thinking?

Do you understand how gravity works?

So would you kindly prove your understanding by the attached Hawking article?

This isn't anything special about Hawking radiation.
If you throw a ball into the sky, it slows down due to the Earth's gravity.
If you throw a particle away from (near) a black hole, it slows down as it leaves.

You seem to think that these particles get some sort of "slingshot" effect or something.
That's not happening.