# What is the mass of a black hole made of?

As the tittle says, what is the mass of a black hole made of? Would it be made of the neutrons (and protons, electrons) that formed the earlier star? If no, what happens to those particles? Where do they go to after the black hole is formed?

• smodak

Related Special and General Relativity News on Phys.org
Dale
Mentor
What is the mass of an electron made of?

What is the mass of an electron made of?
Maybe I did not put the right words to describe my question. I think mass is not made of anything, but instead it's a mathematical property that particles have when interacting with the Higgs field.

martinbn
May be you meant to ask what is the mass of i.e. what does the system with said mass consist of. The answer is that the mass is of the space-time, it can be vacuum no matter is needed. As to the question what happens to the particles, I don't think one can say much i.e. we don't know. By which I mean we don't know (except possibly for conjectures) what the consequences of the theory are. Singularities will form (i.e. there will be geodesicaly incomplete worldlines), but what type they are we don't know. We also don't know which particles will have such worldlines.

PeroK
Homework Helper
Gold Member
As the tittle says, what is the mass of a black hole made of? Would it be made of the neutrons (and protons, electrons) that formed the earlier star? If no, what happens to those particles? Where do they go to after the black hole is formed?
It's tempting to say that all the particles disappear down a black hole!

May be you meant to ask what is the mass of i.e. what does the system with said mass consist of. The answer is that the mass is of the space-time, it can be vacuum no matter is needed. As to the question what happens to the particles, I don't think one can say much i.e. we don't know. By which I mean we don't know (except possibly for conjectures) what the consequences of the theory are. Singularities will form (i.e. there will be geodesicaly incomplete worldlines), but what type they are we don't know. We also don't know which particles will have such worldlines.
Oh Ok. What is the singularity from a math point of view? Metric assuming the value infinity?

It's tempting to say that all the particles disappear down a black hole!
In violation of several laws of physics? PeterDonis
Mentor
2019 Award
1what is the mass of a black hole made of? Would it be made of the neutrons (and protons, electrons) that formed the earlier star?
I think mass is not made of anything, but instead it's a mathematical property that particles have when interacting with the Higgs field.
The second statement of yours quoted above is easier to answer, so I'll start with that. "Mass" in the sense of what particles get via interaction with the Higgs field is not the same concept as "mass" in the sense of what appears as the constant ##M## in the spacetime metric of a black hole. The first concept is a property of particle interactions. The second concept is a property of the spacetime geometry. So it's important to keep the two concepts separate.

Given that, it should now be easier to see the answer to your first question. The mass of the black hole is a property of the spacetime geometry of the hole. It is not "made of" anything other than that. A better question would be, what causes that property of the spacetime geometry to be what it is? The answer to that question is: the matter and energy that formed the object that originally collapsed to form the hole.

what happens to those particles? Where do they go to after the black hole is formed?
According to classical GR, they hit the singularity at the center of the hole and are destroyed. Most physicists believe that is not what actually happens, because the laws of classical GR no longer work when the spacetime curvature gets strong enough, as it does close to the singularity. But we are not sure at this time what actually does happen in this regime.

• QuantumQuest, Dale and stoomart
The second statement of yours quoted above is easier to answer, so I'll start with that. "Mass" in the sense of what particles get via interaction with the Higgs field is not the same concept as "mass" in the sense of what appears as the constant ##M## in the spacetime metric of a black hole. The first concept is a property of particle interactions. The second concept is a property of the spacetime geometry. So it's important to keep the two concepts separate.
Ok. So is it more correct to say that the Earth's mass, say, is a property of the ST geometry while our own mass is due particle interactions?
According to classical GR, [the particles] hit the singularity at the center of the hole and are destroyed
In this case, the Pauli Exclusion Principle would certainly be violated, no? Dont we can use Quantum Mechanics to try to get an idea of what happens there in the singularity?

Last edited:
Nugatory
Mentor
In this case, the Pauli Exclusion Principle would certainly be violated, no? Dont we can use Quantum Mechanics to try to get an idea of what happens there in the singularity?
Why would you think that the exclusion principle might be violated?

Why would you think that the exclusion principle might be violated?
Because in this case two fermions would occupy the same state... but by Peter Donis,
According to classical GR, they hit the singularity at the center of the hole and are destroyed
so, maybe, they are destroyed before occupying the same state?

PeterDonis
Mentor
2019 Award
So is it more correct to say that the Earth's mass, say, is a property of the ST geometry while our own mass is due particle interactions?
You're still using a single word "mass" when you should be distinguishing different concepts. If by the Earth's mass you mean, for example, the ##M## that we deduce from measuring the orbital parameters of satellites, the Moon, etc., that is a property of the spacetime geometry. You and I also, in principle, affect the spacetime geometry around us, so we also have a mass in that sense, but it's much, much harder to detect.

If, OTOH, by the Earth's mass you mean the stress-energy associated with all the particles that compose it, that is due to particle interactions--at least, much of it is. There are also contributions from, for example, the kinetic energy of the Earth's atoms, because it is at a finite temperature, the pressure and stresses in the materials that compose the Earth, etc. You and I also have mass in this sense, of course.

So the simple answer to your question is that all objects have mass in both senses; it isn't a question of some having one and some having the other.

• kent davidge
PeterDonis
Mentor
2019 Award
In this case, the Pauli Exclusion Principle would certainly be violated, no?
GR is a classical theory so it doesn't treat these aspects at all. Matter is treated as a continuous substance.

Dont we can use Quantum Mechanics to try to get an idea of what happens there in the singularity?
We could if we had a theory of quantum gravity. At this point we don't. We only have various speculative candidates.

• kent davidge
GR is a classical theory so it doesn't treat these aspects at all. Matter is treated as a continuous substance.

We could if we had a theory of quantum gravity. At this point we don't. We only have various speculative candidates.
Thank you

As the tittle says, what is the mass of a black hole made of? Would it be made of the neutrons (and protons, electrons) that formed the earlier star? If no, what happens to those particles? Where do they go to after the black hole is formed?
I think what you may have meant is what matter black hole is made of, just as earth is made of several things as described here. I think it is a very interesting question one that I don't believe is so far answered in this thread but I am also curious.

• kent davidge
Maybe one should ask where does the mass of a black hole lie. Of course black holes are made of pure spacetime and nothing else; but where exactly does this mass lie, since the matter from the progenitor star is gone and all is left is the singularity and other than that the properties of the spacetime geometry as driven by this new stellar object.

Last edited:
Oh Ok. What is the singularity from a math point of view? Metric assuming the value infinity?
a singularity is the point where all physics laws break down.
For example in the Schwarzschild metric, there are 2 anomalies in the radial coordinate ##r=0## as a pure singularity and another one ##r=2M## but that's just a coordinate singularity.
The Schwarzschild metric is given by
##ds^2 = - \bigg(1- \frac{2M}{r} \bigg) dt^2 + \bigg( 1-\frac{2M}{r} \bigg)^{-1} dr^2 + r^2 d\theta ^2 + r^2 sin^2\theta d\phi^2##

a singularity is the point where all physics laws break down.
For example in the Schwarzschild metric, there are 2 anomalies in the radial coordinate ##r=0## as a pure singularity and another one ##r=2M## but that's just a coordinate singularity.
The Schwarzschild metric is given by
##ds^2 = - \bigg(1- \frac{2M}{r} \bigg) dt^2 + \bigg( 1-\frac{2M}{r} \bigg)^{-1} dr^2 + r^2 d\theta ^2 + r^2 sin^2\theta d\phi^2##
Very interesting, so the only true singularity occurs at r = 0, but there are more than one coordinate singularity. What happens at these coordinate singularities? (Is it also unknown?)

Ibix
A coordinate singularity just means you made a bad choice of coordinates for that region. There are coordinate singularities at the north and south poles, but there's nothing odd there in reality.

phinds
Gold Member
2019 Award
As the tittle says, what is the mass of a black hole made of? Would it be made of the neutrons (and protons, electrons) that formed the earlier star? If no, what happens to those particles? Where do they go to after the black hole is formed?
What is at the center of a black hole is called a "singularity" which means "the place where the math model breaks down and we don't know WHAT is going on". It certainly seems likely that whatever is there is broken down into elementary particles but we don't know that and likely won't until there evolves a provable theory of quantum gravity that may (or may not) let us figure out what is likely to be happening at the quantum level.

EDIT: OOPS. For some reason I thought I was responding to a new post and managed to miss the subsequent posts, so I've just duplicated what's already been said.

• kent davidge
What is at the center of a black hole is called a "singularity" which means "the place where the math model breaks down and we don't know WHAT is going on". It certainly seems likely that whatever is there is broken down into elementary particles but we don't know that and likely won't until there evolves a provable theory of quantum gravity that may (or may not) let us figure out what is likely to be happening at the quantum level.

EDIT: OOPS. For some reason I thought I was responding to a new post and managed to miss the subsequent posts, so I've just duplicated what's already been said.

The second statement of yours quoted above is easier to answer, so I'll start with that. "Mass" in the sense of what particles get via interaction with the Higgs field is not the same concept as "mass" in the sense of what appears as the constant ##M## in the spacetime metric of a black hole. The first concept is a property of particle interactions. The second concept is a property of the spacetime geometry. So it's important to keep the two concepts separate.

Given that, it should now be easier to see the answer to your first question. The mass of the black hole is a property of the spacetime geometry of the hole. It is not "made of" anything other than that.
Why don't we aswer the question by "The mass of a black hole is made of matter-energy compounds that formed it, whatever the matter made of due to particle physics"?

PeterDonis
Mentor
2019 Award
Why don't we aswer the question by "The mass of a black hole is made of matter-energy compounds that formed it, whatever the matter made of due to particle physics"?
Because that doesn't address the issue of the multiple possible meanings of the term "mass". Nor does it address the fact that the black hole is vacuum.

Very interesting, so the only true singularity occurs at r = 0, but there are more than one coordinate singularity. What happens at these coordinate singularities? (Is it also unknown?)
Like Ibix said a coordinate singularity is just a bad choice we made.

But for the Schwarzschild metric which is a solution to the Einstein field equations and describes the vacuum outside of spherical mass distributions, the metric element contains two singularities ##r=0## which is an essential singularity like I said and ##r=R_{sch}= 2M## which is a coordinate singularity, where the escape velocity is that of light. Now this radius ##R_{sch}= 2MG/c^2## is called the Schwarzschild radius, but we often talk in geometrized units so ##G=c=1## and it becomes ##R_{sch}= 2M##.
This point is also known as the event horizon and it is what gives the term "black" in the name of the black holes. Since nothing can escape from that surface these objects appear black, because nothing is emitted. Later on Steven Hawking talked about the phenomenon where in the vacuum outside the black hole pair production happens, when a particle and its antiparticle are "born", so one of these particles gets sucked by the black hole and the other manages to escape and that is like the black hole emits radiation.

• kent davidge
Like Ibix said a coordinate singularity is just a bad choice we made.

But for the Schwarzschild metric which is a solution to the Einstein field equations and describes the vacuum outside of spherical mass distributions, the metric element contains two singularities ##r=0## which is an essential singularity like I said and ##r=R_{sch}= 2M## which is a coordinate singularity, where the escape velocity is that of light. Now this radius ##R_{sch}= 2MG/c^2## is called the Schwarzschild radius, but we often talk in geometrized units so ##G=c=1## and it becomes ##R_{sch}= 2M##.
This point is also known as the event horizon and it is what gives the term "black" in the name of the black holes. Since nothing can escape from that surface these objects appear black, because nothing is emitted. Later on Steven Hawking talked about the phenomenon where in the vacuum outside the black hole pair production happens, when a particle and its antiparticle are "born", so one of these particles gets sucked by the black hole and the other manages to escape and that is like the black hole emits radiation.
Oh ok. Thank you.

martinbn
• 