Hierarchical Structure of the Cosmos: Black Holes as Portals to Subquantum Dimensions

[r2krc]

Hierarchical Structure of the Cosmos: Black Holes as Portals to Subquantum Dimensions

Abstract:
This piece delves into a theory proposing that our universe experiences cycles of growth, galaxy development, and eventual contraction via black holes. This process births subquantum universes. These interconnected universes, often labeled as "parallel," are nested within one another. Each primary universe can spawn numerous smaller, slower-paced sub-universes.

Introduction:
Throughout epochs, humanity has been captivated by the vastness of the universe and its countless galaxies. Observations of these celestial bodies reveal patterns, suggesting a repetitive and profound cosmic evolution.

Galactic Evolution and Black Holes' Role:
As the universe undergoes expansion, galaxies emerge and gradually distance themselves from each other. At the core of many galaxies is a formidable black hole, which devours surrounding matter and energy. Over epochs, these galaxies, becoming increasingly isolated, are consumed by their central black holes. Within these gravitational voids, matter disintegrates into basic particles, experiencing significant compression. Black holes have the capacity to stretch both space and time, propelling these particles into an expanded subquantum domain.

Black Holes' Dual Explosive Nature:
Black holes, despite their voracious tendencies, have boundaries. Upon reaching a saturation point in their internal expansion, they experience a dual explosion. One diminishes the black hole, while the other resembles the Big Bang, occurring in a subquantum dimension.

Emergence of the Subquantum Universe:
The explosion within the black hole initiates the formation of a new subquantum universe. This nascent universe, although more compact, mirrors its predecessor's evolutionary path, adapting and transforming over epochs. The cyclical nature of the universe, evident in diverse natural phenomena, is reiterated in this sequence. Black holes signify both the termination of one universe and the inception of another.

The Cosmic Web of Interconnection:
These subquantum universes, while termed "parallel," are not standalone entities. They are embedded within their parent universe, residing in an expanded dimension, thus creating a multi-layered cosmic structure. Each universe's unique temporal rhythm gives rise to multiple sub-universes. This cyclical phenomenon suggests that our universe might have evolved from a prior one.

Echoes from the Ancestral Universe:
Given the interconnected fabric of these universes, remnants from an ancestral universe might persist within its descendants. By meticulously examining spacetime and ancient cosmic markers, we might discern traces linking us to a universe predating ours.

Conclusion:
The behavior of the universe, particularly when viewed through the dynamics of galaxy evolution and black holes, unveils the potential existence of a multi-layered, interconnected cosmos. This theory, while still in the realm of speculation, beckons further exploration and challenges our conventional understanding of time, space, and reality.

While I personally lack the means to validate these theories, there are several methods to potentially confirm them:

1-Determining the Existence of a Parental Universe: To ascertain if our universe originated from a preceding one, we should investigate ancient cosmic signatures. By identifying traces older than those from our Big Bang and comparing their magnitude to our universe's cosmic markers, we can draw conclusions. A significant disparity in size might indicate our universe's birth from a larger predecessor.

2- Understanding Black Holes and Subspace Universes: To discern whether black holes give rise to internal subspace universes, it's essential to study a black hole throughout its lifecycle. By quantifying the matter it absorbs and its energy equivalence, and then contrasting this with the energy it emits upon its demise, we can make inferences. If a black hole expels less energy than it ingests, it suggests the presence of an unobservable subspace where the surplus energy might reside.


I wonder if this theory is possible. I couldn't find any proof that goes against it. I'm curious what you thinking about this theory of mine ?

 

[rod]

Interesting, I note here what was presented. "Emergence of the Subquantum Universe: The explosion within the black hole initiates the formation of a new subquantum universe. This nascent universe, although more compact, mirrors its predecessor's evolutionary path, adapting and transforming over epochs. The cyclical nature of the universe, evident in diverse natural phenomena, is reiterated in this sequence. Black holes signify both the termination of one universe and the inception of another."

Alan Guth discussed inflation in 1997 in this report. WAS COSMIC INFLATION THE 'BANG' OF THE BIG BANG?, https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth_contents.html

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth3.html, "3. THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE...Once a patch of the early Universe is in the false vacuum state, the repulsive gravitational effect drives the patch into an inflationary period of exponential expansion. To produce a universe with the special features of the Big Bang discussed above, the expansion factor must be at least about 10^25. There is no upper limit to the amount of expansion. Eventually the false vacuum decays, and the energy that had been locked in it is released. This energy produces a hot, uniform, soup of particles, which is exactly the assumed starting point of the traditional Big Bang theory. At this point the inflationary theory joins onto the older theory, maintaining all the successes for which the Big Bang theory is believed. In the inflationary theory the Universe begins incredibly small, perhaps as small as 10^-24 cm, a hundred billion times smaller than a proton...."

What is the starting size of these *Subquantum Universes* and how large are they today?

 

[r2krc]

The universe is essentially divided into galaxies and each galaxy eventually succumbs to a black hole, giving birth to a new universe. However, when a black hole explodes, it releases some of the particles it has consumed, while the rest are trapped in subspace, leading to the creation of a new universe.

Considering the minuscule size of galaxies in comparison to the vastness of the universe, the subspace created from galaxies, which loses some of its mass as energy and releases it back, would diminish in size with every subsequent universe. I believe the universe is dividing and reproducing itself in progressively smaller sizes through black holes. Each subspace varies depending on the matter the black hole consumes. If it consumes more, the subquantum universe that forms is larger than another subquantum universe originating from the same parent universe.

Black holes possess immense power, causing them to bend and expand space and time significantly. The differences in time relativity between a subquantum universe and its parent universe are likely so vast that, even before they form, every galaxy in the parent universe will have perished, giving rise to other subquantum universes. Each black hole, depending on its mass and force, bends time in relation to its parent universe, creating distinct time frames. However, I believe we occupy the same space. Even if we were to observe a black hole, I doubt we'd find any evidence for subquantum spaces. Yet, since we share the same space with our parent universe, we might be able to detect traces of our parent universe.

PS: Is there any evidence that black holes release all the energy produced from the matter they consume? I haven't been able to find any.

 

[rod]

"The universe is essentially divided into galaxies and each galaxy eventually succumbs to a black hole, giving birth to a new universe. However, when a black hole explodes, it releases some of the particles it has consumed, while the rest are trapped in subspace, leading to the creation of a new universe.

Considering the minuscule size of galaxies in comparison to the vastness of the universe, the subspace created from galaxies, which loses some of its mass as energy and releases it back, would diminish in size with every subsequent universe. I believe the universe is dividing and reproducing itself in progressively smaller sizes through black holes."

IMO, that is quite a concept here r2krc, not that I understand or agree with it. Consider the size of the MW black hole, Sgr A*, said to be some 4 billion solar masses. The Schwarzschild radius ~ 1.1813E+12 cm, diameter of this black hole ~ 2.3626E+12 cm with light travel time across such a diameter ~ 78.8 seconds. Exactly how this black hole evolves into a subquantum universe that continues to evolve into another universe that perhaps get smaller than the Universe we see today, looks challenging to demonstrate.

Alan Guth in 1997 indicated the starting size of the Universe we see today in astronomy was some 10^-24 cm for inflation. Alan Guth in 2013 changed the metric to show 10^-51 cm size for the start of inflation and then the Universe continues to expand into the size we see today, about 46 billion light years radius from Earth using the cosmology calculators with z=1100 for the redshift of the CMBR.

How was the universe created?

We don't really know how the universe was created, though most astrophysicists believe it started with the Big Bang. How was the universe created? : Read more

forums.space.com

You asked, "PS: Is there any evidence that black holes release all the energy produced from the matter they consume? I haven't been able to find any."

My understanding is Hawking radiation. Black holes evaporate and disappear from the Universe over vast spans of time. I use Black Holes and Time Warps, p. 428 for some info on this topic. Kip S. Thorne, 1994.

Oops, Sgr A* is some 4 million solar masses, not 4 billion, my bad but the cm sizes are good because I used 4E+6 solar mass BH in the math.

 

[Atlan0001]

Rather than slamming groups of particles into one another to find what they are made of and how they function, someday a super-duper microscope may be invented to look further and ever further into the microcosm. What will it show us?

It will show us exactly the same picture the JWTS is showing us of the universe toward the furthest horizons "at a distance." The Hubble and the JWTS are renditions of super-duper microscope.

And what it shows us is entanglement and universe self-similarity "at a distance." Fractal zoom universe(s) toward the collapsing, and collapsed, multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, multi-plex, multiverse Horizon of horizon infinity.

 

[rod]

Rather than slamming groups of particles into one another to find what they are made of and how they function, someday a super-duper microscope may be invented to look further and ever further into the microcosm. What will it show us?

It will show us exactly the same picture the JWTS is showing us of the universe toward the furthest horizons "at a distance." The Hubble and the JWTS are renditions of super-duper microscope.

And what it shows us is entanglement and universe self-similarity "at a distance." Fractal zoom universe(s).

This is a good one Atlan0001 Using my telescopes I can see the Galilean moons moving around Jupiter like I did on 11-July this year, very early morning shortly after 0330 EDT. When it comes to seeing nature where Alan Guth has inflation for example, I will wait for the *super-duper microscope* to see the Universe at some 10^-51 cm or 10^-24 cm size

 

[billslugg]

I have a graph of "Average Candy Bar Length" and an easy chair reserved at the candy rack in the curb store down the street. At the rate candy bars are shrinking, one of them will drop below the Planck length of 1.44e-35 meter next Tuesday. We will get our first insight into the underpinnings of relativistic physics.

 

[rod]

I have a graph of "Average Candy Bar Length" and an easy chair reserved at the candy rack in the curb store down the street. At the rate candy bars are shrinking, one of them will drop below the Planck length of 1.44e-35 meter next Tuesday. We will get our first insight into the underpinnings of relativistic physics.

Perhaps the size of candy bars shrinking reflects inflation too

 

[r2krc]

"The universe is essentially divided into galaxies and each galaxy eventually succumbs to a black hole, giving birth to a new universe. However, when a black hole explodes, it releases some of the particles it has consumed, while the rest are trapped in subspace, leading to the creation of a new universe.

Considering the minuscule size of galaxies in comparison to the vastness of the universe, the subspace created from galaxies, which loses some of its mass as energy and releases it back, would diminish in size with every subsequent universe. I believe the universe is dividing and reproducing itself in progressively smaller sizes through black holes."

IMO, that is quite a concept here r2krc, not that I understand or agree with it. Consider the size of the MW black hole, Sgr A*, said to be some 4 billion solar masses. The Schwarzschild radius ~ 1.1813E+12 cm, diameter of this black hole ~ 2.3626E+12 cm with light travel time across such a diameter ~ 78.8 seconds. Exactly how this black hole evolves into a subquantum universe that continues to evolve into another universe that perhaps get smaller than the Universe we see today, looks challenging to demonstrate.

Alan Guth in 1997 indicated the starting size of the Universe we see today in astronomy was some 10^-24 cm for inflation. Alan Guth in 2013 changed the metric to show 10^-51 cm size for the start of inflation and then the Universe continues to expand into the size we see today, about 46 billion light years radius from Earth using the cosmology calculators with z=1100 for the redshift of the CMBR.

How was the universe created?

We don't really know how the universe was created, though most astrophysicists believe it started with the Big Bang. How was the universe created? : Read more

forums.space.com

You asked, "PS: Is there any evidence that black holes release all the energy produced from the matter they consume? I haven't been able to find any."

My understanding is Hawking radiation. Black holes evaporate and disappear from the Universe over vast spans of time. I use Black Holes and Time Warps, p. 428 for some info on this topic. Kip S. Thorne, 1994.

Oops, Sgr A* is some 4 million solar masses, not 4 billion, my bad but the cm sizes are good because I used 4E+6 solar mass BH in the math.

Yes, but that's the event horizon. Also, it's still tiny compared to the universe it belongs to. We can't observe inside at all, and even if we could, we wouldn't be able to see anything due to the difference in the flow of time. I believe this massive bend in time and space creates another dimension. Due to the difference in scales, each of these sub-universes probably has its own unique laws of nature.

They are talking about the radiation released from the black hole. But are there any research studies showing that it releases the same amount of energy it consumes? Or does the radiation definitely come from the matter it consumes, or is it from another source caused by this phenomenon?"

 

[billslugg]

Yes, a Black Hole would release the same amount of mass and energy it accumulated during birth, as it dissipated.
This is very, very slow. A solar mass black hole would wait like 10^40 years to radiate one particle. It would take like 10^100 years to completely go away.
While a Black Hole is in existence, it is essentially another universe, an area we cannot communicate with.

 

[r2krc]

Interesting, I note here what was presented. "Emergence of the Subquantum Universe: The explosion within the black hole initiates the formation of a new subquantum universe. This nascent universe, although more compact, mirrors its predecessor's evolutionary path, adapting and transforming over epochs. The cyclical nature of the universe, evident in diverse natural phenomena, is reiterated in this sequence. Black holes signify both the termination of one universe and the inception of another."

Alan Guth discussed inflation in 1997 in this report. WAS COSMIC INFLATION THE 'BANG' OF THE BIG BANG?, https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth_contents.html

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth3.html, "3. THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE...Once a patch of the early Universe is in the false vacuum state, the repulsive gravitational effect drives the patch into an inflationary period of exponential expansion. To produce a universe with the special features of the Big Bang discussed above, the expansion factor must be at least about 10^25. There is no upper limit to the amount of expansion. Eventually the false vacuum decays, and the energy that had been locked in it is released. This energy produces a hot, uniform, soup of particles, which is exactly the assumed starting point of the traditional Big Bang theory. At this point the inflationary theory joins onto the older theory, maintaining all the successes for which the Big Bang theory is believed. In the inflationary theory the Universe begins incredibly small, perhaps as small as 10^-24 cm, a hundred billion times smaller than a proton...."

What is the starting size of these *Subquantum Universes* and how large are they today?

Interesting, I note here what was presented. "Emergence of the Subquantum Universe: The explosion within the black hole initiates the formation of a new subquantum universe. This nascent universe, although more compact, mirrors its predecessor's evolutionary path, adapting and transforming over epochs. The cyclical nature of the universe, evident in diverse natural phenomena, is reiterated in this sequence. Black holes signify both the termination of one universe and the inception of another."

Alan Guth discussed inflation in 1997 in this report. WAS COSMIC INFLATION THE 'BANG' OF THE BIG BANG?, https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth_contents.html

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth3.html, "3. THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE...Once a patch of the early Universe is in the false vacuum state, the repulsive gravitational effect drives the patch into an inflationary period of exponential expansion. To produce a universe with the special features of the Big Bang discussed above, the expansion factor must be at least about 10^25. There is no upper limit to the amount of expansion. Eventually the false vacuum decays, and the energy that had been locked in it is released. This energy produces a hot, uniform, soup of particles, which is exactly the assumed starting point of the traditional Big Bang theory. At this point the inflationary theory joins onto the older theory, maintaining all the successes for which the Big Bang theory is believed. In the inflationary theory the Universe begins incredibly small, perhaps as small as 10^-24 cm, a hundred billion times smaller than a proton...."

What is the starting size of these *Subquantum Universes* and how large are they today?

Interesting, I note here what was presented. "Emergence of the Subquantum Universe: The explosion within the black hole initiates the formation of a new subquantum universe. This nascent universe, although more compact, mirrors its predecessor's evolutionary path, adapting and transforming over epochs. The cyclical nature of the universe, evident in diverse natural phenomena, is reiterated in this sequence. Black holes signify both the termination of one universe and the inception of another."

Alan Guth discussed inflation in 1997 in this report. WAS COSMIC INFLATION THE 'BANG' OF THE BIG BANG?, https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth_contents.html

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth3.html, "3. THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE...Once a patch of the early Universe is in the false vacuum state, the repulsive gravitational effect drives the patch into an inflationary period of exponential expansion. To produce a universe with the special features of the Big Bang discussed above, the expansion factor must be at least about 10^25. There is no upper limit to the amount of expansion. Eventually the false vacuum decays, and the energy that had been locked in it is released. This energy produces a hot, uniform, soup of particles, which is exactly the assumed starting point of the traditional Big Bang theory. At this point the inflationary theory joins onto the older theory, maintaining all the successes for which the Big Bang theory is believed. In the inflationary theory the Universe begins incredibly small, perhaps as small as 10^-24 cm, a hundred billion times smaller than a proton...."

What is the starting size of these *Subquantum Universes* and how large are they today?

There's no specific size. Probably when he did this research, the sizes he mentioned are valid for this universe. Initially, black hole will compress the matters very small, even smaller than protons. Then, it explodes inside, starting to expand its own space. I don't have any kind of measurement or calculation, but I believe that every subquantum universe has a different size depending on its mother black hole size and the matter it consumes. Then, it creates its own universe, expands, and goes through another cycle. It's like the photos you can always zoom in on. Probably, all these laws would be relatively different in those subspaces. Every birth in the universe is kind of splitting from its source. Probably, our universe is also a split from a bigger one.

 

[r2krc]

Yes, a Black Hole would release the same amount of mass and energy it accumulated during birth, as it dissipated.
This is very, very slow. A solar mass black hole would wait like 10^40 years to radiate one particle. It would take like 10^100 years to completely go away.
While a Black Hole is in existence, it is essentially another universe, an area we cannot communicate with.

I think so too, if there's such universe exist. We wouldn't be able to travel or communicate at all. Thanks for the information

 

[billslugg]

I think so too, if there's such universe exist. We wouldn't be able to travel or communicate at all. Thanks for the information

No two way communication through an event horizon. Only one way - from outside to inside.

 

[r2krc]

No two way communication through an event horizon. Only one way - from outside to inside.

I meant the other side actually. Until some point of event horizon we can communicate. But how far we can send signals too?

 

[rod]

Interesting discussion. I look to see some specific measurements provided. If a black hole today in astronomy is a universe that we do not communicate with, just how large is that universe and what law(s) of nature describe that universe? Does abiogenesis take place somewhere in that black hole universe we do not see or communicate with?

 

[billslugg]

Hawking radiation aside, we will never know what is inside a Black Hole. You can go there but you can't come back and can't phone home. Might as well be another universe. We will never know any more about any black hole than it's mass, charge and spin.

 

[r2krc]

Interesting discussion. I look to see some specific measurements provided. If a black hole today in astronomy is a universe that we do not communicate with, just how large is that universe and what law(s) of nature describe that universe? Does abiogenesis take place somewhere in that black hole universe we do not see or communicate with?

It was just a theory. I was thinking if black holes keeps some of the matters inside, maybe it will form into a new universe. Thanks to @billslugg, he confirms black holes releases the energy back after consumes. So I might be wrong. But if it was other way, in my theory black holes would be a gate for a new universes. You'll have to scale it (the mass of the matters it consumed by black hole divided by the whole mass of all the matters in universe) then multiply by expanding speed. Also I'm not sure how much it compress the matters inside or when it explodes how powerful it will be. If there's such universe exist its size would be highly related such factors. But as it releases everything it consumes and we are sure about it. Then I'm definitely wrong. I got this idea after I read an article says they have found older cosmic traces than big bang. Then I was thinking how it could be possible and after some research I came up with this theory.

I have one more question. Let say every galaxies eaten by it's massive black holes. Nothing left in universe just different sizes of black holes. After they explodes and decays, what will happen to energy they release? Because that's sounds like a death for a universe. But I believe what we are living in is a never ending cycle of destruction and birth. Also the Big Bang we know probably wasn't the only one

 

[rod]

It was just a theory. I was thinking if black holes keeps some of the matters inside, maybe it will form into a new universe. Thanks to @billslugg, he confirms black holes releases the energy back after consumes. So I might be wrong. But if it was other way, in my theory black holes would be a gate for a new universes. You'll have to scale it (the mass of the matters it consumed by black hole divided by the whole mass of all the matters in universe) then multiply by expanding speed. Also I'm not sure how much it compress the matters inside or when it explodes how powerful it will be. If there's such universe exist its size would be highly related such factors. But as it releases everything it consumes and we are sure about it. Then I'm definitely wrong. I got this idea after I read an article says they have found older cosmic traces than big bang. Then I was thinking how it could be possible and after some research I came up with this theory.

I have one more question. Let say every galaxies eaten by it's massive black holes. Nothing left in universe just different sizes of black holes. After they explodes and decays, what will happen to energy they release? Because that's sounds like a death for a universe. But I believe what we are living in is a never ending cycle of destruction and birth. Also the Big Bang we know probably wasn't the only one

Okay r2krc, that is something to chew on Space.com does have some articles on the cyclic universe and others have proposed multiple BB events.

Dark energy could lead to a second (and third, and fourth) Big Bang, new research suggests, https://forums.space.com/threads/da...-fourth-big-bang-new-research-suggests.60323/

 

[billslugg]

If you find a multibillion solar mass BH, the event horizon will be so far out that the gravitational force difference beween your head and your feet will be negligible. You would have to wait a few tenths of a second to fall down closer to the center before your atoms got torn to shreds and the pieces torn into smaller shreds.
This tidal force is fatal right at the event horizon for solar mass size black holes. You'd be torn to shreds as you entered. So any idea of any thing that you might want to pass into another universe by sending it through a black hole cannot be comprised of anything but isolated atomic sub-particles. No way to join them together in the form of information.

 

[Catastrophe]

Due to the difference in scales, each of these sub-universes probably has its own unique laws of nature.

Wouldn't this "explain just about anything"? What, if anything real at all, are "sub-universes?

Cat

 

[r2krc]

If you find a multibillion solar mass BH, the event horizon will be so far out that the gravitational force difference beween your head and your feet will be negligible. You would have to wait a few tenths of a second to fall down closer to the center before your atoms got torn to shreds and the pieces torn into smaller shreds.
This tidal force is fatal right at the event horizon for solar mass size black holes. You'd be torn to shreds as you entered. So any idea of any thing that you might want to pass into another universe by sending it through a black hole cannot be comprised of anything but isolated atomic sub-particles. No way to join them together in the form of information.

I was thinking so as well. But what happens the energy it releases. Does it decays in universe? Or forms into something else later on? I don't think anything can keep its form after it enters in a black hole. I just wonder what happens the energy after blackhole dies out?

 

[r2krc]

Wouldn't this "explain just about anything"? What, if anything real at all, are "sub-universes?

Cat

When I said unique I mean relatively, it will still have some similarities. But as space and time bends gravity, speed of light would be relatively different there. That was what I meant actually, I didn't think it would sound as completely different laws.

 

[billslugg]

I was thinking so as well. But what happens the energy it releases. Does it decays in universe? Or forms into something else later on? I don't think anything can keep its form after it enters in a black hole. I just wonder what happens the energy after blackhole dies out?

A black hole will evaporate a tiny bit one rare occasion. What happens right inside the event horizon, like everywhere in the universe, virtual particles constantly come into and out of existance. If a 1.022 photon happened to graze the inside of the evnt horizon exactly as it decayed into a positron and an electron, then one of them might exit the event horizon and leave the black hole.

Q: Why is there not such a similar phenomena just outside the black hole sending electrons to the inside?
A: I don't know.

 

[r2krc]

A black hole will evaporate a tiny bit one rare occasion. What happens right inside the event horizon, like everywhere in the universe, virtual particles constantly come into and out of existance. If a 1.022 photon happened to graze the inside of the evnt horizon exactly as it decayed into a positron and an electron, then one of them might exit the event horizon and leave the black hole.

Q: Why is there not such a similar phenomena just outside the black hole sending electrons to the inside?
A: I don't know.

Hawking radiation is the theoretical thermal black body radiation released outside a black hole's event horizon. This is counterintuitive because once ordinary electromagnetic radiation is inside the event horizon, it cannot escape. It is named after the physicist Stephen Hawking, who developed a theoretical argument for its existence in 1974.[1] Hawking radiation is predicted to be extremely faint and is many orders of magnitude below the current best telescopes' detecting ability.

Hawking radiation reduces the mass and rotational energy of black holes and is therefore also theorized to cause black hole evaporation. Because of this, black holes that do not gain mass through other means are expected to shrink and ultimately vanish. For all except the smallest black holes, this would happen extremely slowly. The radiation temperature is inversely proportional to the black hole's mass, so micro black holes are predicted to be larger emitters of radiation than larger black holes and should dissipate faster.[2]

Hawking radiation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So the radiation it releases is just proportional to the black hole's mass. So Does it mean black holes seal some of the matter and energy inside?

Also, it says Hawking radiation is predicted to be extremely faint and is many orders of magnitude below the current best telescopes' detecting ability.

If black holes consumes and then releases it back in a form of radiation or energy, it would be easily detected as it would be equvialent to the mass it consumes.

I'm quite new into this topic, thanks for your responds and patient

 

[billslugg]

The theorized time to evaporate a black hole due to Hawking Radiation occurs at a rate inversely proportional to the cube of the mass of the black hole. So the smaller it gets the faster it goes.
Once gone there is nothing left.