[Bored chemist]

If you believe in negative mass, than you have to find it.

No.
I only need to find evidence for it.
If my mill grinds corn, I don't have to see the wind to know it's there.

A theory needs to explain things, and it needs to be internally consistent, and it needs not to contradict reality.

BBT ticks all those boxes; your idea does not.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:05:51
How can you protect your theory without real observation of Negative mass particle?

It's in the math.

I have found that our scientists normally set several assumptions when they are using the Math.
Based on those assumptions/manipulations the sky is the limit.
Tell me what you need and the math is there for your support.
For example - Friedman had assumed that the Universe is isotopic and homogenous.
Based on Friedman Math our scientists could justify the BBT.
However, is it correct to assume that at any condition the Universe is homogenous and isotropic?
In the same token, the space time is based on Minkowski   (1,0,0,0) assumption for 4D matrix.
It is clear that by this assumption Minkowski  gave up on some math component in his calculation.
Those missing components might be very minor. However, small change at very long distance (close to the infinity) could set a sever change.
Therefore, Based on this  Minkowski space-time assumption, our scientists get unrealistic curvature in our Universe.
So, the math by itself is always correct.
However, once you twist the starting point or add some assumptions (even minor assumptions) it could lead to fatal results.
Therefore, could it be that by using the correct assumptions, almost every goal is achievable?
Could it be that the math prove for the negative mass particle - is also based on minor changes/assumptions in the Math?.
Could it be that also the math evidences for dark energy or dark matter are also based on minor changes in the math?

Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.
Our scientists must find the smoking gun.
If they claim for negative mass - they have to see it or at least to observe the impact due to this idea.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:05:51
If you believe in negative mass, than you have to find it.

No.
I only need to find evidence for it.
If my mill grinds corn, I don't have to see the wind to know it's there.

Where is the evidence for the negative mass directly or indirectly?
Our scientists claim that due to Hawking radiation there must be a real negative mass particle.
Therefore, they claim that Hawking radiation by itself can be used as an evidence for that missing negative mass particle.
Is it real?
How can we consider that approach as real science?
If Hawking claims that there is a negative mass particle due to its theory, we must find it directly or indirectly.
Negative mass means negative gravity.
So, negative gravity should be use as an evidence for negative mass particle.
Do we see any negative gravity around the BH?
If we don't observe any negative gravity than how can we be sure that there is real negative mass in our Universe?

A theory needs to explain things, and it needs to be internally consistent, and it needs not to contradict reality.
BBT ticks all those boxes; your idea does not.

Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas.
So, how can you claim that BBT ticks all the boxes?
Actually, you raise the Conservation energy flag as the most important issue in our discussion.
You even claim that the gravity force (that Hawking called - gravity energy) can't contribute any velocity to the new created particle.
So, somehow out of nothing and without any investment of energy you hope that the virtual particles pair will be converted to real particles with real velocities. All of that, without any sort of energy.
Is it real?
How can we believe in such a story?
You know for sure that there might be some minor changes in energy between the new created particles. Why do you ignore that possibility?
I wish I could generate negative and positive money out of nothing.
In any case, so far you didn't answer the most important question about the BBT:
What is the source of energy for all the matter in our observable Universe?
You can't just bypass that issue and claim that it isn't your problem.
Yes, it is our problem.
In the BBT, we don't discuss just on a kinetic energy for the new created particle.
We discuss on the total energy for the whole Universe.
As you hold high above the flag of energy conservation law for that tiny particle, where is this flag for the BBT energy conservation activity?
What is the source of energy for the whole observable universe including dark matter and dark energy?
How can you hide behind the answer - it is not our task to answer this question.
If it is not your task to show the source of energy for the whole Universe, why it is my task to show the source of energy for that orbital velocity of new born particle?
Sorry, if you give a waiver for yourself for the infinity energy that is needed for the BBT, than you could be little be more flexible with my request to get free of charge a velocity for the new created particle.
Please be aware, I don't ask to get the mass-energy of the particle for free.
I'm ready to pay for that by real energy.
I only ask that its kinetic energy would be considered as a direct outcome from the gravity energy
Why is it so big request from you while you took for free almost infinite energy for the moment of the Big Bang?.

[Kryptid]

Based on those assumptions/manipulations the sky is the limit.
Tell me what you need and the math is there for your support.

No it isn't. The math must obey the laws of physics. That's a very real limit.

However, is it correct to assume that at any condition the Universe is homogenous and isotropic?

According to observations, it appears to be.

Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.

In what way is Hawking's math "manipulated"?

But, as I said before, if particles can't have negative mass-energy under any circumstances, then black holes can't radiate particles and your model is therefore falsified.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas.
So, how can you claim that BBT ticks all the boxes?

BBT doesn't need any of those things.
Why tell that lie?

[Bored chemist]

BH.png (292.44 kB . 353x341 - viewed 3254 times)It turns out that bad jokes make more sense than D L's "theory"

[Malamute Lover]

1. Negative mass-energy particle

The internal environment of the black hole is what allows that particle to have negative mass to begin with. Space-time is extremely distorted there.

Virtual particles pairs can exist because they are balanced in every way even to the point of opposite mass-energy values. They add up to zero.

Outside the surface of the BH it is all about gravity (At least based on Hawking concept).
So, how the internal environment of the black hole can generate at the event of horizon (high above its surface) a negative mass particle?
Virtual particles can't be considered as real particles.
So, does real Negative mass-energy particle exist in our Universe?
The idea that you need it for your theory does not necessarily convert it to reality.
If you believe in negative mass, than you have to find it.
Have you ever found any sort of negative mass (or its impact as negative gravity) around a BH or elsewhere?

Real negative mass-energy particles do not exist in our universe. Virtual ones do, paired with positive mass-energy particles. The net sum is zero mass energy. 

Virtual particles have real effects in the time they exist. One example is fine tuning electron energy levels a touch away from what is expected.  Willis Lamb got a Nobel Prize for demonstrating that one. Quite a few other things like that by now including the really exotic Casimir effect. There are those who like to say that in quantum field theory, virtual particles are just fluctuations in a field. What they do think real particles are in quantum field theory?

Hawking’s model involves what can happen in the extreme curvature near the event horizon. He concentrates on photons in his discussion. In an asymptotically flat space, not deep in a black hole, it is reasonable to deal only with positive frequencies, that is, photons as we know them.

However, in the extreme curvature of spacetime very near an event horizon, negative frequencies can become real. The math behind this is very heavy, Hermitian scalar field operators, co-variant wave functions and the like. I know these things as a bit more than just names and they are scary. The upshot is that Hawking says that very near the event horizon, where the radius of curvature is in the neighborhood of the Planck length, the vacuum energy state has changed enough that negative frequencies are allowed.

Recall that the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. A negative frequency translates to negative energy.

The existence of negative mass is required in order to keep the conservation of energy. The black hole can't radiate positive mass without losing an equal amount of mass itself.

If based on our modules it is there then why we have never ever found it?
Could it be that it is only exist in our wishful list?
How can you protect your theory without real observation of Negative mass particle?
As there is no Negative mass-energy particle in our universe, then don't you agree that this theory is none relevant?
Why are you so sure that a black hole can't radiate positive mass without losing an equal amount of mass itself?
Do you claim that there is only one theory for that radiation?
Sorry, if you need a negative mass for your theory, you must observe it.
If you can't observe it, then it's the time to change disc and look for better theory.

In the late 19th century Ernst Mach, a brilliant physicist but also a follower of extreme Logical Positivism, demanded that no one be allowed to talk about atoms because they could never be observed. Niels Bohr, another Logical Positivist, claimed that whatever is not being observed by a human does not exist. Schrödinger came up with his famous cat thought experiment to point out the problems with that idea.

Virtual particles cannot in principle be observed. Yet virtual particle theory works very well including both force exchange models and explanations for some unusual phenomena. The virtual particle model assumes negative mass-energy.  (Quarks also cannot in principle be observed, yet that theory has enormous explanatory and confirmed predictive power.)

It is not necessary to exhibit an entity if the assumption of its existence works so very well.

2. Perfect creation particles system
How do we know for sure that the total energy in the new created particles is absolutely zero?
If one particle is located even one micro of a Pico mm to the left with regards to the other one, than already its energy is different from the other particle.
In any real system, there is no perfect match. Even a very small difference of 10^1000 is still a difference.
So, how can you believe is such a perfect creation system?

Energy as a real quantity is not dependent on position. Potential energy and kinetic energy are observer dependent and can change values or even vanish in different reference frames.

3. Negative kinetic energy
You claim that the negative kinetic energy of the falling negative mass particle into the BH, can evaporate extra mass from the BH.
I can accept the idea that a negative mass particle can evaporate positive mass particle.
However, how its negative kinetic energy can evaporate any sort of mass?
Can you please prove it?
How could it be that a negative mass particle that is falling at velocity V can evaporate more mass than the same particle falling at a velocity V-v.?
Please be aware that the surface of the BH might not be so smooth.
Therefore, the same falling particle could collide with the surface of the BH at different H.
Hence, its velocity during the impact could be changed based on the location of the collision point.
Therefore, the same particle could collide with the surface of the BH at a different velocity (or kinetic energy).
This by itself sets a key violation in energy conservation - as you see it.

In Hawking’s model, the negative energy does not collide with the event horizon. It tunnels through it. It is just outside the event horizon then it is inside. No falling involved. It is already right there.

4. Gravity Energy
Hawking is specifically discuss on Gravity Energy. Not gravity force but gravity energy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
If the gravity force is not energy than why he specifically highlights that the pair was produced by that gravitational energy?
So, why he is using the word energy instead of force for the key phase of pair production process?
Could it be that he knew that energy is needed to produce anything in our universe including new particle–antiparticle pair?
Therefore, why can't we understand that without investing energy, there will be no particle–antiparticle pair?
As he had no idea for the source of energy, he had selected the available gravity force as the source of the requested energy in that process.
If you claim that the gravity force has no energy, than how the universe could create this pair without investing energy?

Gravity definitely has energy, which means that it modifies gravity force. This is one of the things that makes GR math so nastily non-linear and solving GR problems so hard. Luckily the interaction of gravity energy with other gravity energy is convergent, that is, the end result is finite.

But it is neither gravity energy nor gravitational force that creates the particles. It is the extreme spacetime curvature near the event horizon that makes virtual real by shifting the vacuum energy state.  This allows negative energy to be real but it does not supply the energy. This is difficult to explain without serious math and that is why plain English expositions are generally misleading.

5. Banking system Energy

Sorry, our Universe is not a banking system. If something is created in our Universe, the payment in energy must come in advance and in cash.
Nothing would be created without payment in real energy in ADVANCE!
So, don't you agree that new particles/photons could be created just after a transformation of real energy (in advance) from the BH to that creation process (whatever it is)?
Therefore, if you believe in BH mass evaporation process, than first the BH must evaporate some of its mass-energy and just then it can hope to get real particle/photon.

I have also mentioned the time order issue earlier. I do not have an answer. If we ever get a viable quantum gravity theory, it might make sense. Especially if that involves a new concept of spacetime, which looks like it may very well be the case.

Thanks
So, you also see a problem in this creation process.
The question is very simple:
When do we have to pay for in energy for the creation of the pair?
If it is just after the creation of the pair, than this is clearly a banking energy system.
Sorry, nothing in our universe would be created without a payment in energy in advanced.
I assume that even hawking knew it. Therefore, he called it Gravity Energy:
Therefore, in any production system, you must invest energy before you get something - even if you think that its energy is zero.
So, do you agree that without first investment with real energy - nothing could be created?

As I noted above, Hawking did not use the phrase ‘gravity energy’.  And as I have said earlier in this thread, Hawking seems to be mainly just balancing the books, showing that pluses and minuses come out right.  But it is IMO short on mechanism. In exactly what way does the energy swap happen?

6. Energy waste/efficiency
In any system, there is no zero waste.
The sun converts Hydrogen to helium by fusion process. In that process we get some of the extra energy waste as heat.
Even in our car the energy efficiency is less than 100%.
Therefore, in any creation/transformation of energies some of the energy must be converted to heat and waste.
Therefore, in order to create a particle and antiparticle (even if we claim that their total energy is zero) the BH must invest more energy than zero.
However, you introduce a theory with 100% efficiency.

So, don't you agree that the idea that a BH creates real particles with total zero, with investment of zero energy, at zero waste of energy should be zero.
How can we accept/believe in such hypothetical idea?

In events at the quantum level there are no entropy considerations. Quanta come in ready-made chunks of specific sizes.  A photon for photon exchange of the type Hawking postulates will always be exactly equal and opposite. You have to get a substantial number of particles before you can start talking about some of them leaving the system of interest.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Real negative mass-energy particles do not exist in our universe. Virtual ones do, paired with positive mass-energy particles. The net sum is zero mass energy.

Thanks for this important confirmation.
As long as we keep the negative mass at the virtual imagination, than it is OK with me.

In Hawking’s model, the negative energy does not collide with the event horizon. It tunnels through it. It is just outside the event horizon then it is inside. No falling involved. It is already right there.

If no falling involve, a negative particle with velocity V should have the same impact as a negative particle with higher or lower velocity.
In other words, its velocity is none relevant.
Therefore, the energy that is evaporated from the BH is exactly E=mc^2 as was stated by hawking.
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)"
He doesn't say even one word about the velocity of the new created particle.
Hence, Hawking does not claim for the potential or kinetic energy of the particle that falls in.
Therefore, the kinetic/potential energy of the escaped particle isn't part of the mass evaporation process.

Hawking’s model involves what can happen in the extreme curvature near the event horizon. He concentrates on photons in his discussion

So, hawking concentrates on Photons
I assume that you specifically mention the Photon as it is considered as mass less particle.
If this is the case, than you have to agree that Hawking doesn't offer a real solution for a particle with real mass.

In an asymptotically flat space, not deep in a black hole, it is reasonable to deal only with positive frequencies, that is, photons as we know them.
However, in the extreme curvature of space-time very near an event horizon, negative frequencies can become real.

Thanks for this information
So, in the extreme curvature of space-time very near an event horizon, negative frequencies can become real.
The question is: what could be the impact of those negative frequencies?
You claim that a negative frequency might be translated to negative energy:

Recall that the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. A negative frequency translates to negative energy.

This might be one possibility for mass less photon.
However, I think on a different aspect.

As I noted above, Hawking did not use the phrase ‘gravity energy’.

Yes he does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy..."
In any case, you confirm that gravity has energy!

Gravity definitely has energy, which means that it modifies gravity force. This is one of the things that makes GR math so nastily non-linear and solving GR problems so hard. Luckily the interaction of gravity energy with other gravity energy is convergent, that is, the end result is finite.

I wonder what could be the impact of that gravity energy under the extreme negative frequency and under the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon on a real mass particle?
Again, not mass less photon, but real mass particle?
We will come to that key issue soon.

But it is neither gravity energy nor gravitational force that creates the particles. It is the extreme spacetime curvature near the event horizon that makes virtual real by shifting the vacuum energy state.

So, how the extreme space-time curvature had been created?
Don't you agree that without the mighty BH gravity force there will be no space-time curvature near the event horizon.
I also agree with you that "it is neither gravity energy nor gravitational force that creates the particles".
So, there must be other energy source that sets this activity.
However, what do you mean by: "shifting the vacuum energy state"?
Is there any energy in the vacuum due to the Mighty BH gravity force that is shifted?
Hence do you agree that the Mighty BH gravity force can shift that vacuum energy near the event horizon, in order to "makes virtual real" (as you have stated),

Virtual particles have real effects in the time they exist. One example is fine tuning electron energy levels a touch away from what is expected.  Willis Lamb got a Nobel Prize for demonstrating that one. Quite a few other things like that by now including the really exotic Casimir effect. There are those who like to say that in quantum field theory, virtual particles are just fluctuations in a field. What they do think real particles are in quantum field theory?

Well, I don't claim that virtual particles are unrealistic.
I just say that real negative mass particle is a pure imagination.
You have stated that theoretically negative particle could be ejected outwards. So, if it was real, we had to monitor the impact of the negative gravity.

You also have stated:

This allows negative energy to be real but it does not supply the energy.

This is the most important message in your answer!!!
You clearly claim that it "does not supply the energy".
Any real mass particle can't be created without investment of real energy
All it says that virtual particles can become real - but somehow they must get the energy in their mass from other real energy source.
Therefore, I don't accept the concept that virtual particles could be converted to real mass particles without real source of energy (even if you claim for positive and negative mass).
If you wish to get real mass particle - than you have to offer a real source of energy.
The source for that activity is called - Electromagnetic field/energy.
So, how it really works by theory D:
We all know that around the BH/SMBH there is a strong electromagnetic field.
That electromagnetic field sets the energy that is requested to transform a mass less virtual particle pair into real mass particle pair.
Therefore, the BH gravity force/energy sets the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon which "makes virtual real" by shifting the vacuum energy state. However, the energy in the particles mass is transformed from the electromagnetic field.
Therefore, there are two key elements that are working on converting the virtual mass particles to real particles.
The energy in their mass is given by the electromagnetic field, while their transformation from virtual to real is a result of the mighty BH's gravity force + the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon + the shifting the vacuum energy state + negative frequencies that contribute the orbital velocity of the new created particle.
Therefore, they get their ultra high velocity due to that "shifting the vacuum energy state".
So, as the virtual mass particles become real they keep their orbital velocity. The negative frequency or/and the vacuum energy is the source for that.
So, we get two particles with real mass (in both) but with reverse charged polarity orbiting at ultar high velocity in the same direction.
At the moment of their creation they directly affected by Lorentz force.
Therefore, they immediately splitted by this force that works according to their polarity.
One is shifted inwards, falls into the BH, while the other one is ejected outwards and join the other particles in the photon sphere or the accretion disc.
Hence, the falling particle increases the total mass of the BH.
The energy for the particle pair mass is taken by the magnetic field from the spin/heat of the BH.
However, the falling particle increases the heat/rotation of the BH due to its collision with the BH surface, while the one that is ejected contribute some energy to the BH by tidal force.
In total, all the BHs are increasing their mass over time, while the Universe gets more new particles.
Please be aware that nothing can fall into a BH or especially a SMBH.
The BH/SMBH magnetic field is so strong that any particle that will dare to come closer to the accretion disc will be boosted upwards/downwards at almost the speed of light.
Therefore, we clearly see the two molecular jet steams above and below the poles of our SMBH
In any case, without the BH's magnetic field there is no way to convert virtual mass particle into real particle.
Try to shut down the BH's magnetic field and you shut down the radiation.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

BBT doesn't need any of those things.
Why tell that lie?

Is it correct that our scientists have no clue about the energy source that was needed to start the Big Bang?
Correct or incorrect?
How can you raise the flag of energy conservation law while you totally ignore that law when it comes to the BBT?
There is big difference between theory D to BBT.
In theory D the mighty SMBH's gravity force + the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon + the shifting in the vacuum energy state + negative frequencies that contribute the orbital velocity of the new created particle.
There is no request for free energy-mass.
So, let's make a deal
I give a waiver for the whole energy that was needed to set the Big bang, while you give a waiver just for that velocity of new created particle.
Agree?
If you still don't agree than please show the source of energy that was needed for the Big Bang!!!
Without it, I really can't understand how you can you still hold the flag of energy conservasion!

[Bored chemist]

How can you raise the flag of energy conservation law while you totally ignore that law when it comes to the BBT?
There is big difference between theory D to BBT.

I addressed that earlier.
But you are right; there is a big difference.
One theory requires the sudden one-off provision of a lot of energy / mass.
And we have evidence here, in front of our eyes today, that the energy / mass was supplied- we are here.

Whereas your idea (it's not a theory) is that energy/ mass is being supplied on a continuous basis- for which there is no evidence nor a credible mechanism- just a misunderstanding of black hole radiation.
Worse than that, your idea doesnt actually help explain teh universe.
What you are saying is that black holes magically create mass.
Even if it was true it wouldn't help.
Because you need to explain where the first black hole came from.

Correct or incorrect?

No, it's irrelevant.
Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."
It wasn't true.
So, why did you tell that lie?

Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.
You need to answer the question.
Why did you say something that's not true?

[Malamute Lover]

Real negative mass-energy particles do not exist in our universe. Virtual ones do, paired with positive mass-energy particles. The net sum is zero mass energy.

Thanks for this important confirmation.
As long as we keep the negative mass at the virtual imagination, than it is OK with me.

As I described last time, virtual particles have real effects. They are not imaginary. They are real for their allowed lifetimes. Virtual photons having no mass never die, which is why the electromagnetic force they carry has infinite range. It is the detection of the predicted effects of virtual photons on electron energy levels and the confirmation of the actual existence of virtual particles that got Lamb his Nobel Prize.

In Hawking’s model, the negative energy does not collide with the event horizon. It tunnels through it. It is just outside the event horizon then it is inside. No falling involved. It is already right there.

If no falling involve, a negative particle with velocity V should have the same impact as a negative particle with higher or lower velocity.
In other words, its velocity is none relevant.
Therefore, the energy that is evaporated from the BH is exactly E=mc^2 as was stated by hawking.
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)"
He doesn't say even one word about the velocity of the new created particle.
Hence, Hawking does not claim for the potential or kinetic energy of the particle that falls in.
Therefore, the kinetic/potential energy of the escaped particle isn't part of the mass evaporation process.

Since the negative energy particle tunnels through the event horizon courtesy of quantum uncertainty, there is no falling involved. The negative energy (negative frequency) of a photon that goes through the black hole accounts for the existence of a real photon outside. In the case of photons, the speed is always lightspeed. Negative mass-energy particles with non-zero negative mass tunneling through the event horizon can account for the existence of a real positive mass-energy particle with positive mass outside. But it does not provide them with kinetic energy.

Hawking’s model involves what can happen in the extreme curvature near the event horizon. He concentrates on photons in his discussion

So, hawking concentrates on Photons
I assume that you specifically mention the Photon as it is considered as mass less particle.
If this is the case, than you have to agree that Hawking doesn't offer a real solution for a particle with real mass.

Hawking does not provide for generating particles with mass in his discussion. Hawking even avoids the topic, noting that problems arise when the radius of curvature is in the neighborhood of the Compton wavelength of a particle with mass.  Photons being massless have an infinite Compton wavelength. Even if particles with mass were created, there is still the kinetic energy issue. As has been discussed earlier, without a speed near that of light and fortuitously being pointed straight up, the particle will fall back, restoring its mass to the black hole and canceling the evaporation.

The Hawking radiation from a black hole is supposed to be the same as the temperature dependent radiation of a black body (one that absorbs any radiation falling on it). The temperature of the black hole is inversely proportional to its mass. This works just fine with photon only radiation.

You are correct that there is a problem with particles with mass being emitted from a black hole.

In an asymptotically flat space, not deep in a black hole, it is reasonable to deal only with positive frequencies, that is, photons as we know them.
However, in the extreme curvature of space-time very near an event horizon, negative frequencies can become real.

Thanks for this information
So, in the extreme curvature of space-time very near an event horizon, negative frequencies can become real.
The question is: what could be the impact of those negative frequencies?
You claim that a negative frequency might be translated to negative energy:

Recall that the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. A negative frequency translates to negative energy.

This might be one possibility for mass less photon.
However, I think on a different aspect.

As I noted above, Hawking did not use the phrase ‘gravity energy’.

Yes he does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy..."
In any case, you confirm that gravity has energy!

Hawking did not use the phrase ‘gravity energy’ or ‘gravitational energy’ as the source of the particles. The source used by the Wiki article was An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics. Hawking’s actual description of the process is well beyond introductory level.  It is energy traded out of the black hole via the tunneling of negative energy into the black hole that gives the outside particle energy allowing it to become real. As described by Hawking anyway, and even that is a simplified shortcut version.

To complicate things a bit more, Hawking’s methodology involves (speaking very roughly) positive and negative frequencies.(Recall that particles with mass have a Compton wavelength which can be related to photon frequency.) Negative frequencies can be viewed as going backward in time. Annihilation is the canceling of a positive frequency. (Again very roughly speaking.) Real particles do not have negative frequencies. There is a sharp distinction between positive and negative frequencies. The vacuum state is when there are no particles that can be annihilated (no annihilation possible because no negative frequencies possible). But in a highly curved spacetime, time itself is bent and the difference between forward and backward in time is not clear. Negative frequencies become possible.  The vacuum energy level has shifted.

Normally that would be possible only on the other side of the event horizon. But Hawking uses quantum uncertainty at extreme small radius of curvature to pull it off.

Gravity definitely has energy, which means that it modifies gravity force. This is one of the things that makes GR math so nastily non-linear and solving GR problems so hard. Luckily the interaction of gravity energy with other gravity energy is convergent, that is, the end result is finite.

I wonder what could be the impact of that gravity energy under the extreme negative frequency and under the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon on a real mass particle?
Again, not mass less photon, but real mass particle?
We will come to that key issue soon.

As will my response.

But it is neither gravity energy nor gravitational force that creates the particles. It is the extreme spacetime curvature near the event horizon that makes virtual real by shifting the vacuum energy state.

So, how the extreme space-time curvature had been created?
Don't you agree that without the mighty BH gravity force there will be no space-time curvature near the event horizon.
I also agree with you that "it is neither gravity energy nor gravitational force that creates the particles".
So, there must be other energy source that sets this activity.
However, what do you mean by: "shifting the vacuum energy state"?
Is there any energy in the vacuum due to the Mighty BH gravity force that is shifted?
Hence do you agree that the Mighty BH gravity force can shift that vacuum energy near the event horizon, in order to "makes virtual real" (as you have stated),

The vacuum energy level shift merely makes negative frequencies possible, allowing negative energy virtual particle partners to act real. There is not yet any energy made available. The only energy source is that of the black hole mass.

Virtual particles have real effects in the time they exist. One example is fine tuning electron energy levels a touch away from what is expected.  Willis Lamb got a Nobel Prize for demonstrating that one. Quite a few other things like that by now including the really exotic Casimir effect. There are those who like to say that in quantum field theory, virtual particles are just fluctuations in a field. What they do think real particles are in quantum field theory?

Well, I don't claim that virtual particles are unrealistic.
I just say that real negative mass particle is a pure imagination.
You have stated that theoretically negative particle could be ejected outwards. So, if it was real, we had to monitor the impact of the negative gravity.

I do not see why it should always be the negative energy partner that does the tunneling. Should it not be half and half? Causing negative energy particle sot be ejected? If there is a bias, it seems to me that the negative energy partner should go ‘up’ against gravity because it is in effect going backward in time.

You also have stated:

This allows negative energy to be real but it does not supply the energy.

This is the most important message in your answer!!!
You clearly claim that it "does not supply the energy".
Any real mass particle can't be created without investment of real energy
All it says that virtual particles can become real - but somehow they must get the energy in their mass from other real energy source.
Therefore, I don't accept the concept that virtual particles could be converted to real mass particles without real source of energy (even if you claim for positive and negative mass).
If you wish to get real mass particle - than you have to offer a real source of energy.
The source for that activity is called - Electromagnetic field/energy.
So, how it really works by theory D:
We all know that around the BH/SMBH there is a strong electromagnetic field
That electromagnetic field sets the energy that is requested to transform a mass less virtual particle pair into real mass particle pair.
Therefore, the BH gravity force/energy sets the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon which "makes virtual real" by shifting the vacuum energy state. However, the energy in the particles mass is transformed from the electromagnetic field.
Therefore, there are two key elements that are working on converting the virtual mass particles to real particles.
The energy in their mass is given by the electromagnetic field, while their transformation from virtual to real is a result of the mighty BH's gravity force + the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon + the shifting the vacuum energy state + negative frequencies that contribute the orbital velocity of the new created particle.
Therefore, they get their ultra high velocity due to that "shifting the vacuum energy state".
So, as the virtual mass particles become real they keep their orbital velocity. The negative frequency or/and the vacuum energy is the source for that.
So, we get two particles with real mass (in both) but with reverse charged polarity orbiting at ultar high velocity in the same direction.
At the moment of their creation they directly affected by Lorentz force.
Therefore, they immediately splitted by this force that works according to their polarity.
One is shifted inwards, falls into the BH, while the other one is ejected outwards and join the other particles in the photon sphere or the accretion disc.
Hence, the falling particle increases the total mass of the BH.
The energy for the particle pair mass is taken by the magnetic field from the spin/heat of the BH.
However, the falling particle increases the heat/rotation of the BH due to its collision with the BH surface, while the one that is ejected contribute some energy to the BH by tidal force.
In total, all the BHs are increasing their mass over time, while the Universe gets more new particles.
Please be aware that nothing can fall into a BH or especially a SMBH.
The BH/SMBH magnetic field is so strong that any particle that will dare to come closer to the accretion disc will be boosted upwards/downwards at almost the speed of light.
Therefore, we clearly see the two molecular jet steams above and below the poles of our SMBH
In any case, without the BH's magnetic field there is no way to convert virtual mass particle into real particle.
Try to shut down the BH's magnetic field and you shut down the radiation.

Black holes do not themselves have an inherent magnetic field, having no magnetic pole. Black holes have no hair as the saying goes. They are characterized entirely by mass, angular momentum and electric charge. Magnetic fields do appear to be associated with black holes because of the plasma jets they emit.

Magnetic fields have been detected and studied in detail very near the massive black hole at the center of the galaxy. Parts are orderly, other parts chaotic and it changes substantially very often. This is not a simple dynamo effect.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-magnetic-field-just-outside-our-black-hole-has-been-studied-for-the-first-time

However, observation of another black hole showed much less magnetic activity than models indicated.
https://www.sciencealert.com/black-hole-magnetic-field-weaker-than-expected-v404-cygni

In any case, it does appear that magnetic field activity is larger in larger black holes. Yet the Hawking radiation model has large black holes emit less than small ones.  Magnetic fields as a factor in Hawking radiation does not sound like a contender.

By the way, the accretion disk around the black hole at the center of this galaxy is in “circular orbit of a compact polarized 'hot spot' of infrared synchrotron emission at approximately six to ten times the gravitational radius of a black hole of 4 million solar masses. This corresponds to the region just outside the innermost, stable, prograde circular orbit (ISCO) of a Schwarzschild-Kerr black hole, or near the retrograde ISCO of a highly spun-up Kerr hole. The polarization signature is consistent with orbital motion in a strong poloidal magnetic field.”
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.12641

Anything that went inside the lowest possible orbit went down into the black hole. If the matter in the accretion disk instead went into the jets and nothing went into the black hole, why the sharp cutoff at the lowest possible orbit level?

There was an enormous x-ray flare from the black hole in 2013, 400 times brighter than the normal level.

The researchers have two main theories about what caused Sgr A* to erupt in this extreme way. The first is that an asteroid came too close to the supermassive black hole and was torn apart by gravity. The debris from such a tidal disruption became very hot and produced X-rays before disappearing forever across the black hole's point of no return, or event horizon.

“If an asteroid was torn apart, it would go around the black hole for a couple of hours – like water circling an open drain – before falling in,” said co-author Fred Baganoff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “That’s just how long we saw the brightest X-ray flare last, so that is an intriguing clue for us to consider.”

If this theory holds up, it means astronomers may have found evidence for the largest asteroid to produce an observed X-ray flare after being torn apart by Sgr A*.

A second theory is that the magnetic field lines within the gas flowing towards Sgr A* could be tightly packed and become tangled. These field lines may occasionally reconfigure themselves and produce a bright outburst of X-rays. These types of magnetic flares are seen on the sun, and the Sgr A* flares have similar patterns of intensity.
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-s-chandra-detects-record-breaking-outburst-from-milky-way-s-black-hole

If the first theory is correct, it shows that things do fall into the black hole. If the second theory is correct, it would point to the accretion disk as the source of the coherent magnetic field that creates the jets, rather than the incoherent and highly variable magnetic field associated with the black hole. As the source I quoted above put it, the polarization signature of the accretion disk points to a strong poloidal magnetic field. Yet this is exactly what the black hole does not have. This would further weaken the case for a magnetic field being associated with Hawking radiation.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You are correct that there is a problem with particles with mass being emitted from a black hole.

Thanks

Negative mass-energy particles with non-zero negative mass tunneling through the event horizon can account for the existence of a real positive mass-energy particle with positive mass outside. But it does not provide them with kinetic energy.

Thanks for this important confirmation about the kinetic energy that was the highlight of our discussion.

With regards to the SMBH magnetic filed:

In any case, it does appear that magnetic field activity is larger in larger black holes.

Thanks

A second theory is that the magnetic field lines within the gas flowing towards Sgr A* could be tightly packed and become tangled. These field lines may occasionally reconfigure themselves and produce a bright outburst of X-rays. These types of magnetic flares are seen on the sun, and the Sgr A* flares have similar patterns of intensity.
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-s-chandra-detects-record-breaking-outburst-from-milky-way-s-black-hole

So, it is clear that the flares are due to the mighty magnetic field around the Sgr A*
In our earth the Magnetic field drifts the solar wind to the poles of our planet.
So, the Erath' magnetic field prevent from the solar wind to hit our planet.
In the same token, the SMBH' magnetic field protects the SMBH from any falling matter.
If any Atom from outside will dare to come closer, it will be boosted by that mighty magnetic field at almost 0.8c to about 27,000LY above/below the SMBH poles and be part of the molecular jet stream.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Accretion disc

If the second theory is correct, it would point to the accretion disk as the source of the coherent magnetic field that creates the jets,

What is the radius of the accretion disc?
Why can't we extract the real SMBH' mass directly from the accretion disc?
How do we know for sure that the mighty magnetic field is due to the accretion disc instead of the SMBH core rotation?
The total mass in the accretion disc is estimated at three Sun mass.
How that limited mass could generate the mighty magnetic field that is needed for the Molecular jet stream - of 0.8c up to 27,000L
I do recall that in one of the articles that you have offered it was stated that the polarity of the SMBH' magnetic field is changed at relatively high frequency (few hours?)
As the accretion disc rotates in one direction, how could it change the polarity without changing the orbital direction?
However, the SMBH can do it as the Earth is also changing the magnetic field polarity from time to time.

[Bored chemist]

No, it's irrelevant.
Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."
It wasn't true.
So, why did you tell that lie?

Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.
You need to answer the question.
Why did you say something that's not true?

Also, where did the first black hole come from?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What you are saying is that black holes magically create mass.
Even if it was true it wouldn't help.
Because you need to explain where the first black hole came from.

Thanks for your excellent question.
Based on theory D the whole infinite Universe had been evolved from a single BH.
So, I agree that we need to find an explanation for that first BH.
We can compare that first BH to the first living cell by Darwin theory.
He told us that the whole variety of life had been evolved form a single living cell.
No one really knows how that first living cell had been created.
However, that first "living cell" was the based for all the life in our planet.
In the same token, the first BH should be considered as the first "living matter cell" in the Universe.
So, how the First BH had been created is quite difficult question.
I would advice to use the first section of the BBT.
Please remember, the first BH had been created while the whole Universe was totally empty up to the infinity
So, for this first BH we can really claim that the time was zero.
Therefore, there is good chance that somehow something had been created out of nothing by some sort of a bang. But it must be a very compact something as a single tiny BH.
Based on the BBT everything in our universe had been created by a Bang.
It is absolutely none realistic to hope that the energy for Billions over billions galaxies, stars, BHs, SMBHs.. in our whole observable Universe had been created by a bang.
However, just one single tiny BH in one or even sevaral bangs might be feasible idea.

[Bored chemist]

We can compare that first BH to the first living cell by Darwin theory.

Or we can, more sensibly compare it to the BB.
It's an uncaused cause.
But now we have got that out of the way, perhaps you can reply to this- as the rules require.

No, it's irrelevant.
Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."
It wasn't true.
So, why did you tell that lie?

Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.
You need to answer the question.
Why did you say something that's not true?

[Bored chemist]

We can compare that first BH to the first living cell by Darwin theory.

Or we can, more sensibly compare it to the BB.
It's an uncaused cause. In any event, the physics couldn't work.~Even if your magic trick for making mass worked (spoiler alert; it doesn't) then it could only produce matter that was moving fast enough to escape the BH gravity. So any matter produced would spread out into space never to be seen again.
Any that was not going fast enough to escape would, obviously, fall in and so it too would never be seen again.
But now we have got that out of the way, perhaps you can reply to this- as the rules require.

No, it's irrelevant.
Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."
It wasn't true.
So, why did you tell that lie?

Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.
You need to answer the question.
Why did you say something that's not true?

[Malamute Lover]

With regards to the SMBH magnetic filed:

In any case, it does appear that magnetic field activity is larger in larger black holes.

Thanks

You missed the point. Larger black holes have lower Hawking radiation rates. If the magnetic field had anything to do with it, larger black holes would have larger Hawking radiation rates rather than smaller.

A second theory is that the magnetic field lines within the gas flowing towards Sgr A* could be tightly packed and become tangled. These field lines may occasionally reconfigure themselves and produce a bright outburst of X-rays. These types of magnetic flares are seen on the sun, and the Sgr A* flares have similar patterns of intensity.
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-s-chandra-detects-record-breaking-outburst-from-milky-way-s-black-hole

So, it is clear that the flares are due to the mighty magnetic field around the Sgr A*
In our earth the Magnetic field drifts the solar wind to the poles of our planet.
So, the Erath' magnetic field prevent from the solar wind to hit our planet.
In the same token, the SMBH' magnetic field protects the SMBH from any falling matter.
If any Atom from outside will dare to come closer, it will be boosted by that mighty magnetic field at almost 0.8c to about 27,000LY above/below the SMBH poles and be part of the molecular jet stream.

The Earth has a very orderly magnetic field. Sgr A* has a very disorderly one. I will repeat what I said in a prior post, Please read it,

Black holes do not themselves have an inherent magnetic field, having no magnetic pole. Black holes have no hair as the saying goes. They are characterized entirely by mass, angular momentum and electric charge. Magnetic fields do appear to be associated with black holes because of the plasma jets they emit.

Magnetic fields have been detected and studied in detail very near the massive black hole at the center of the galaxy. Parts are orderly, other parts chaotic and it changes substantially very often. This is not a simple dynamo effect.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-magnetic-field-just-outside-our-black-hole-has-been-studied-for-the-first-time

However, observation of another black hole showed much less magnetic activity than models indicated.
https://www.sciencealert.com/black-hole-magnetic-field-weaker-than-expected-v404-cygni

The magnetic field activity around the galactic black hole is totally unlike that of the Earth. It is not going to coherently guide anything. In any case, the magnetic field of the earth guides lightweight charged particles from the solar wind toward the poles. It does not do a thing to ward off meteors. If a magnetic field centered on the black hole operated like this, there would be tremendous activity at the poles, there is not.

The mechanism that keeps the Sagittarius black hole quieter than the SMBHs found in most large galaxies appears to be a coherent magnetic field in the region around the black hole, but not the incoherent fields associated with the black hole itself.  This magnetic field has a spiral shape that directs gas and dust into an orbital path. Some still gets through and falls into the black hole.

https://www.space.com/milky-way-supermassive-black-hole-magnetic-field-quiet.html

Accretion disc

If the second theory is correct, it would point to the accretion disk as the source of the coherent magnetic field that creates the jets,

What is the radius of the accretion disc?

The accretion disc has an outside radius of about 88 billion km. Most of that is cool gas. The hot spot inner region has a radius of 130-220 million km. The disc cuts off at about 11 million km at the innermost stable circular orbit. Anything below that point is going to fall into the black hole. Temperature in the inner part of the accretion disc reaches 10 million K.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.12641
https://www.space.com/milky-way-monster-black-hole-cool-disk.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1242-z
https://www.realclearscience.com/quick_and_clear_science/2019/06/06/the_milky_ways_supermassive_black_hole_has_an_accretion_disk_thats_25x_larger_than_the_solar_system.html

Why can't we extract the real SMBH' mass directly from the accretion disc?

Star S2 has been observed for several decades in its orbit around the Sagittarius A*. This allows much more precise calculations of the mass of the black hole.

How do we know for sure that the mighty magnetic field is due to the accretion disc instead of the SMBH core rotation?

A black hole is not a planet. A black hole is described completely by three characteristics: mass, angular momentum and electric charge. A black hole with a non-zero electric charge would quickly get neutralized by attracting opposite charged ions. Nothing comes out from behind the event horizon including magnetic fields. It does not matter if a black hole had a rotating iron core or whatever, it would have no effect on the outside world.  Black holes have no magnetic poles. In addition, the chaotic nature of the constantly shifting magnetic fields near the event horizon rules out any coherent magnetic field associated with the black hole itself.

The total mass in the accretion disc is estimated at three Sun mass.
How that limited mass could generate the mighty magnetic field that is needed for the Molecular jet stream - of 0.8c up to 27,000L

The accretion disc is highly ionized plasma and its innermost portion is moving at 30% lightspeed in a circular orbit. Sounds like it could generate quite a powerful magnetic field.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-material-orbiting-black-hole.html

I do recall that in one of the articles that you have offered it was stated that the polarity of the SMBH' magnetic field is changed at relatively high frequency (few hours?)
As the accretion disc rotates in one direction, how could it change the polarity without changing the orbital direction?
However, the SMBH can do it as the Earth is also changing the magnetic field polarity from time to time.

What I referenced was that there is no magnetic pole on the black hole, they do not have them. There are chaotic magnetic fields all around near the event horizon. Some are organized, some are disorganized but everything changes very frequently. As I recall, there is a completely different situation typically around every 15 minutes.

BTW “the Sagittarius A* radio emissions are not centered on the black hole, but arise from a bright spot in the region around the black hole, close to the event horizon, possibly in the accretion disc, or a relativistic jet of material ejected from the disc.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Central_black_hole

Bottom Line: Magnetic fields around a black hole have no bearing on Hawking radiation.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The accretion disc has an outside radius of about 88 billion km. The hot spot inner region has a radius of 130-220 million km. The disc cuts off at about 11 million km at the innermost stable circular orbit. Anything below that point is going to fall into the black hole. Temperature in the inner part of the accretion disc reaches 10 million K.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.12641

Thanks
Before we continue our discussion on any other subject, let's focus on the accretion disc.
In the following article it is stated that the "magnetized accretion disk/torus of ∼10 light minutes in diameter".
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.12641.pdf
"Intercontinental microwave interferometry and polarized infrared(IR)/X-ray variability on 10-30 minute timescales suggest that this emission comes from highly relativistic electrons in a hot, magnetized accretion disk/torus of ∼10 light minutes in diameter, plus perhaps a jet, just outside the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) of the putative massive black hole "
Therefore, the radius of the accretion disc is about 10/2 = 5 light minutes. Which is about 88 Billion Km as you have stated.
Can we assume that the orbital velocity of the plasma at the accretion disc (R=88Bkm) is 0.3c?
Based on this data, what is the estimated mass of the SMBH?

[Bored chemist]

Can we assume that the orbital velocity of the plasma at the accretion disc (R=88Bkm) is 0.3c?

It's not clear why we would.

Based on this data, what is the estimated mass of the SMBH?

The estimated mass - given in that paper- is 4.14 million times the mass of the Sun.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/07/2020 11:17:26
No, it's irrelevant.
Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."
It wasn't true.
So, why did you tell that lie?

Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.
You need to answer the question.
Why did you say something that's not true?