You might find this article of interest...if you haven't already read it.

I read that before.

I do not understand if there would be a relationship to the amount of mass inside the child universe and the mass of the black hole. My first impression is that they would be equal, but the theory presented does not confirm or deny that.

In our theoretical case that makes the parent black hole ultra massive for our universe.

In our universe the theoretical maximum size for a black hole is probably 50 billion solar masses, a far cry from the 10^23 solar masses estimated for our universe.

The upper limit is thought to be the point where the outgoing radiation pressure from the event horizon is so intense as to push any remaining neighborhood matter that might fall in, away from the black hole.

I would think this would need to be reconciled to make the parent black hole to new child universe theory work for our observed universe.

If information is never destroyed,I will presume that it can not likewise be created.

When a black hole reaches 50 solar masses, it can no longer absorb information?

At that point another universe will form?

Or does the black hole alternate between feasting and fasting cycles, waiting for Hawking Radiation to decrease it's mass before it can feed again?

All of our questions have answers at the edge of the universe.

What is the calculated area of our present universe?The answer is there.

(Please don't say 42x(?))

42, Ha! How about bigger than a breadbox?

When a black hole reaches its upper limit the infall of material essentially trickles to a stop. Hawking radiation is much lower for a large black hole versus a very small one.

So, a meg-sized black hole is going to take a long, long time to evaporate.

If and when a new universe is formed is just total conjecture. I haven't a clue.

Ok, if a black hole's radiation drives away matter, and it ceases to feed,then anything that later came within it's reach could be captured and sucked down the event horizon, which would emit radiation for a while, then it would be silent until the next victim came along.So what fixes the upper limit to it's size?

Hawking radiation is not enough to drive away matter,is it?

I can see sporadic feeding/fasting cycles, but not a complete permanent shut down.What am I missing?

Another question:

Why does it take longer for a large black hole to evaporate?With a larger event horizon, it should capture more virtual particles, unless the dimensions of the event horizon are dulled to the point that it cannot capture a single virtual particle.Since the virtual particles are not necessarily side-by-side and may be widely separated, it should not make any difference,should it?

The virtual particles must be entangled somehow,for what if one partner is captured by a local black hole, and the other is captured by another black hole many light years away at the same instant?How are the books balanced?

I don't know why.

It's not the Hawking radiation, but the garbage encircling the event horizon.

Eventually, all of the neighborhood is gobbled up and there really isn't anything around the black hole to feed it. Anything small is driven off by the intense radiation pressure.

HiTekRedNek.. Sir, if I may..

The words Steven Hawkins and Knowledge should not be mixed in the same glass, like oil and water they will separate if left alone. Hawkins theories are in the true sense imaginative, and based on the Emperors new clothes paradyme..No one has the courage to tell him it is all the dogs dangling bits.. "If" in Hawkins case is the most scientific structure used in any of his theory.

Along the same line of thought, how do we really know what he is saying?The only one that understands his vocalizations is his assistant.How do we really know what is behind the curtain?

He may just be a puppet,brought out every so often to espouse a great profound idea,and then back into the shell he goes.The assistant does all of the talking.

Sure, he has a computer-interpreter, but everyone knows that also can be faked.

I am not belittling anyone, but a healthy dose of cynicism is always prudent.If he truly is cognizant it is a terrible pity to be trapped within one's self, and I wish it were not so, and he has my heartfelt sympathy.

As far as the opening line of "IF" is not to be accepted, then all is lost, for all theories begin with:"It is as IF..." and expounds from there.If proven to be true, the wording is changed by dropping the "IF".

I have utmost respect for the scientific method,and in due time, much will be understood,but we should not let our knowledge be a substitute for wisdom, and realize that we are simply discovering pieces of a mechanism that we did not create.

Your thought about virtual particles being created near the event horizon is called Hawking Radiation, where one of the pair is drawn into the black hole and the other escapes as radiation.

This process leads to the black hole evaporating over a very long time period.

It is important to note that all radiation from a black hole only comes from this side of the event horizon. Anything inside the event horizon, no matter its energy, never escapes because the escape velocity inside the event horizon is greater than the speed of light.

One interesting fact about black holes, the amount of information ingested by a black hole is precisely equal to the surface area of the event horizon.

As far as your particle pileup goes at the center of a black hole, the mathematics for the physics breaks down and becomes meaningless. So, who knows...

"... the amount of information ingested by a black hole is precisely equal to the surface area of the event horizon."

I've heard this before, but could you state this mathematically? or how would you go about doing it? in other words what are you using as a measurement? a single layer of atoms?

...and what's happening to all the buttons on the CR4 web page?

The theory is that one plank unit represents one bit of information.

The maximum amount of information that can possibly be contained in any region of space can be stored in the boundary of the region using no more than one quarter bit per Planck area. Leonard Susskind (author of The Black Hole War) thinks it should be redefined so it's one for one. I don't think there has been any concensus on that.

As you say, all energy emitted from a black hole comes forms this side of the event horizon, so if one virtual particle is captured,and it's partner is emitted as radiation, why does the black hole not increase in mass, instead of "evaporating"?How can it lose mass if nothing escapes?

I must be missing some critical piece of the theory,or failing to understand it.

The best I can say is, that when a pair of virtual particles are formed next to the event horizon it is possible for one of the pair to fall into the black hole's gravity well and its partner to escape.

When this happens there must be a preservation of total energy by the laws of physics, which means that the particle captured by the black hole will therefore have a negative energy. This causes a net reduction in the mass of the black hole (remember E=mc^2).

If the process of virtual particle consumption exceeds the net mass of neighboring particles (non-virtual) consumed by the black hole, the black hole will have a net mass loss over time.

So, an observer from a distance would see the black hole emit a particle every time its virtual partner is consumed.

So, when a virtual pair splits, in order to conserve total energy, the potential energy of the mass of the virtual particle becomes more and more negative as it falls into the gravity well.

When I said "in the cue" in my original post, I meant in the flow of particles that are doomed, but not yet beyond the event horizon.The ones that generate x-rays as their dying gasp.This could generate more energy than could be accounted for by ordianry matter going down the hole.

Also, what if the matching particle did not generate normal energy, as we perceive it.

Imagine a soup of perfectly equal parts positive and negative.Remove a negative particle, and the net charge becomes positive.Imagine furthermore that only 2 particles can combine,and since the positive particle has lost it's mate,it is repelled by all of the other particles.Since there are more positive charges now, the new soup would rearrange itself by expanding.Likewise if a positive particle is removed. Imagine this on a large scale, and could it explain cosmic expansion?

No it won't

A black hole is like an onion, and a pretty girl is like an everlasting melody.

^{(Some poetic license taken)}

Apart from the Steven Hawkins theory what other ones are there ? You might start with the only constant .. IF you knew what it was..

Steven Hawkins theory of the universe? He doesn't have one.