<p>A good hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable.  Can you think of consequences that could be verified if your hypothesis is correct? If not, then any other non-falsifiable hypothesis is equally valid which means we get nowhere.</p>

<p>To break it down... your hypotheses is:</p>

<ul>
<li>(a) the black hole loses mass, and  </li>
<li>(b) that mass is being transported to another part of the
universe.</li>
</ul>

<p>I don't know how to test (b) but I can think of ways to test (a). </p>

<p>The consumed matter will increase the mass of the black hole.  If a black hole has  a mass of 15 Solar masses and we drop another star the size of our own Sun into it (1 Solar mass) it will have 16 Solar masses.  If matter is being transported out of the black hole, then the mass should decrease instead of increasing (or at least not increase as much as you expect if only a fraction of matter is transported).</p>

<p>It is possible to measure the mass of an object by observing the rate at which other (less massive) objects orbit the black hole.  Astronomers should be able to notice the gravitational pull of these objects getting weaker (observed by a change in the orbits of nearby stars.)</p>

<p>Black holes were all the rage in cosmology and heavily studied.  Stephen Hawking put forth a theory that black holes should be able to "evaporate" (and this helps get around the "black hole information paradox") ... although based on his math, this should happen at an incredibly slow rate (not something you'd notice even if you could watch it for a few billion years.)  If Hawking is correct, then black holes can lose mass ... but very slowly.  (Also that mass is not transported across the universe... but really just beyond the event horizon.)  Read up on "Hawking Radiation" to learn more about his ideas.</p>

<p>The universe is fairly young (it's less than 14 Billion years old) which isn't long enough for even modest sized black holes to have had time to evaporate based on Hawking radiation.  </p>

<p>I should think that black hole studies would have noticed the loss of mass if matter were being transported out of the black hole ... and that would be <em>really</em> big news if it were noticed (cosmologists would be <em>extremely</em> interested).  As such, I don't think this has happened.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-05T07:57:43.063Z
If they observe, means my theory may be true is that what you are saying to me sir.
Tony Stark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-05T08:01:20.153Z
Sir I am saying what happens to the matter goes inside a black hole may be it can be possible
Tony Stark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-05T16:58:53.510Z
No. I am not saying your hypothesis may be true (I'm gently letting you down that your hypothesis is failing to get beyond the first step.)  Often, something odd is observed and *then* hypotheses are considered to explain the observation (and then tested to determine which, if any, may be correct).  The issue here is there has been no observation.  It's like trying to explain why all the air is leaking out of a car tire when... all observations and measurements show the tire hasn't actually lost any air (so there's no need for a hypothesis to explain where it is going).
Tim Campbell
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-15T01:19:52.273Z
Black holes formed by star collapse have a Hawking radiation temperature in the nanokelvin range (& SMBHs are in the picokelvins), much colder than the current CMB temperature (2.725 K), so they absorb far more radiation than they emit. A BH needs to have less than 0.00754 × the mass of Earth to have a Hawking radiation temperature that high.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-15T01:20:14.540Z
Hawking radiation is emitted in the vicinity of the event horizon outside the BH, it doesn't travel from inside the BH across the event horizon. See https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/252236/123208 A key phrase from that answer is: "the scattering is modified because everything inside the horizon *cannot* contribute."
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-05T05:53:16.453Z
2019-03-05T05:53:16.453Z
Tim Campbell
<p>Im not a fan of the idea of anything somehow escaping the inescapable, as  Tim Campbell stated,  the missing mass would have most likely been observed. 
<a href="https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahep/2018/1372359/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahep/2018/1372359/</a>
 When particles tunnel,  they never actually violate causality, and even though there is the smallest imaginable chance the particle could end up.. Well, anywhere, its wave fuction is pretty much localized within a small area, and thats right around and beyond the barrier it tunnelled past. So basically, they arent breaking through or tunnelling out of the black hole. 
<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole</a>
  This may interest you though,</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-12T00:09:34.613Z
2020-04-12T00:38:19.143Z
2020-04-12T00:38:19.143Z
Dkcash413
<p>My hypothesis is:</p>

<p>"quantum tunneling in black hole".</p>

<p>The matter which is consumed by a black holes is shifting to another part of the universe by quantum tunneling. Can it be possible?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T09:35:17.583Z
Welcome on the Astronomy SE! :-) No, quantum tunneling is a very different thing. Furthermore, this another Universe thing of the rotating black holes is only a mathematical hyphothese. Probably you will get a more detailed answer from someone.
peterh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-12T01:10:48.987Z
I’m not sure that this is on-topic here.
dalearn
<supermassive-black-hole>
Quantum tunneling in black holes
Tony Stark
# Quantum tunneling in black holes

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-03-04)

My hypothesis is:

"quantum tunneling in black hole".

The matter which is consumed by a black holes is shifting to another part of the universe by quantum tunneling. Can it be possible?

**Tags:** supermassive-black-hole
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Welcome on the Astronomy SE! :-) No, quantum tunneling is a very different thing. Furthermore, this another Universe thing of the rotating black holes is only a mathematical hyphothese. Probably you will get a more detailed answer from someone.  
> **username_2**: I’m not sure that this is on-topic here.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-03-05. Score: 2

A good hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable. Can you think of consequences that could be verified if your hypothesis is correct? If not, then any other non-falsifiable hypothesis is equally valid which means we get nowhere.

To break it down... your hypotheses is:

* (a) the black hole loses mass, and
* (b) that mass is being transported to another part of the
  universe.

I don't know how to test (b) but I can think of ways to test (a).

The consumed matter will increase the mass of the black hole. If a black hole has a mass of 15 Solar masses and we drop another star the size of our own Sun into it (1 Solar mass) it will have 16 Solar masses. If matter is being transported out of the black hole, then the mass should decrease instead of increasing (or at least not increase as much as you expect if only a fraction of matter is transported).

It is possible to measure the mass of an object by observing the rate at which other (less massive) objects orbit the black hole. Astronomers should be able to notice the gravitational pull of these objects getting weaker (observed by a change in the orbits of nearby stars.)

Black holes were all the rage in cosmology and heavily studied. Stephen Hawking put forth a theory that black holes should be able to "evaporate" (and this helps get around the "black hole information paradox") ... although based on his math, this should happen at an incredibly slow rate (not something you'd notice even if you could watch it for a few billion years.) If Hawking is correct, then black holes can lose mass ... but very slowly. (Also that mass is not transported across the universe... but really just beyond the event horizon.) Read up on "Hawking Radiation" to learn more about his ideas.

The universe is fairly young (it's less than 14 Billion years old) which isn't long enough for even modest sized black holes to have had time to evaporate based on Hawking radiation.

I should think that black hole studies would have noticed the loss of mass if matter were being transported out of the black hole ... and that would be *really* big news if it were noticed (cosmologists would be *extremely* interested). As such, I don't think this has happened.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: If they observe, means my theory may be true is that what you are saying to me sir.  
> **username_0**: Sir I am saying what happens to the matter goes inside a black hole may be it can be possible  
> **username_3**: No. I am not saying your hypothesis may be true (I'm gently letting you down that your hypothesis is failing to get beyond the first step.)  Often, something odd is observed and *then* hypotheses are considered to explain the observation (and then tested to determine which, if any, may be correct).  The issue here is there has been no observation.  It's like trying to explain why all the air is leaking out of a car tire when... all observations and measurements show the tire hasn't actually lost any air (so there's no need for a hypothesis to explain where it is going).  
> **username_4**: Black holes formed by star collapse have a Hawking radiation temperature in the nanokelvin range (& SMBHs are in the picokelvins), much colder than the current CMB temperature (2.725 K), so they absorb far more radiation than they emit. A BH needs to have less than 0.00754 × the mass of Earth to have a Hawking radiation temperature that high.  
> **username_4**: Hawking radiation is emitted in the vicinity of the event horizon outside the BH, it doesn't travel from inside the BH across the event horizon. See https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/252236/123208 A key phrase from that answer is: "the scattering is modified because everything inside the horizon *cannot* contribute."  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2020-04-12. Score: 2

Im not a fan of the idea of anything somehow escaping the inescapable, as Tim Campbell stated, the missing mass would have most likely been observed.
<https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahep/2018/1372359/>
When particles tunnel, they never actually violate causality, and even though there is the smallest imaginable chance the particle could end up.. Well, anywhere, its wave fuction is pretty much localized within a small area, and thats right around and beyond the barrier it tunnelled past. So basically, they arent breaking through or tunnelling out of the black hole.
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole>
This may interest you though,


---

